Political Entanglements : Intent on politics-as-usual, Bush now faces a sloppy ending to a clean war.

A foreign dictatorship brutally suppresses its opponents. People are massacred. But the United States refrains from public expressions of outrage. President George Bush declines to comment, saying only, “I think perhaps this is a time for caution.”

Sound familiar? That was the U.S. response to the Chinese government’s savage crackdown on student protesters in Beijing in June, 1989. It is also our response to the current blood bath in Iraq. Only this time, the United States is partly responsible for the blood bath: We encouraged the Iraqi people to revolt, and then we left Saddam Hussein with his army virtually intact.

The “new world order” is beginning to look suspiciously like the “old world order.” Morality? Human rights? The rule of law? Forget it. We’re back to politics-as-usual.

Which is exactly why our “clean win,” as Gen. Colin L. Powell described it, is beginning to look dirtier and dirtier. What Americans liked about the Gulf War is that Bush let the military fight it. He didn’t try to micromanage the war from the White House, and he didn’t let politics interfere with military decisions.

Until the end. That was what the flap between the White House and Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf was all about last month. Schwarzkopf argued that the President’s decision to end the ground war after 100 hours was essentially a political, not a military, decision. As a military man, Schwarzkopf’s mission was to destroy the enemy’s capability to wage war. He told television interviewer David Frost, “We had them in a rout, and we could have continued to wreak great destruction upon them. We could have . . . made it a battle of annihilation.”

But we didn’t. Schwarzkopf said Bush’s decision “is one of those that historians are going to second-guess forever--why didn’t we go for one more day versus why did we stop when we did, when we had them completely routed?”

The answer is: politics. The White House was eager to pull U.S. troops out as quickly as possible to protect the President’s standing in the polls, even if their military mission was dangerously incomplete. We wanted to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq, even if the only way to do so was to leave a murderous dictator in power. And we wanted to avoid responsibility for what happened in Iraq, even if that meant abandoning the Kurdish and Shiite minorities to Hussein’s tender mercies.

Now we have the luxury of saying, “Sorry, but it’s not our problem.” In fact, that’s exactly what Bush said last week. His exact words were: “I feel frustrated any time innocent civilians are being slaughtered, but the United States and these other countries with us in this coalition did not go there to settle all the internal affairs of Iraq.”

Political calculations ruled the end of the war, and they have ruled every decision since. The United States wants to avoid the “Lebanonization” of Iraq. Why? Because we want Iraq to remain a counterweight to Iran, a nation that threatens us. Last week, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Hafez Assad proclaimed their commitment to a united and independent Iraq. Why? Because Egypt and Syria are secular Arab states, and they want to make sure Iraq is, too. That will help them stand up to the tide of Islamic fundamentalism that threatens them.

The United States did not want to go too far in supporting Iraq’s beleaguered Kurdish minority. Why? Because the Kurds might demand autonomy, or even independence. That would threaten Turkey, Syria and Iran, all with substantial Kurdish minorities. It would also threaten Israel, which fears an autonomous Kurdistan would be a model for a Palestinian homeland.

The Soviets and the Chinese did not pressure the United Nations to address the Kurdish problem. Why? Because they have ethnic minority problems of their own. If the United Nations intervened on behalf of the Kurds, it could also threaten to intervene on behalf of the Lithuanians and the Tibetans.

U.S. troops were forced to stand by and witness the massacre of Iraqi Shiites by Iraq’s Revolutionary Guard. “There isn’t a soldier here who does not want to finish (the war),” one army lieutenant said. “They hate this.” Why didn’t we do anything? Because a Shiite state would be a client of Iran, and that would threaten everyone--including the United States.

Iraq is not the only guilty party. Kuwaitis have committed atrocities against Palestinians under our very noses. But Bush has refused to pressure the Kuwaiti government to carry out democratic reforms. In his most recent letter to the emir of Kuwait, Bush even avoided using the word “democracy,” for fear of offending him. We did, however, permit the Army Corps of Engineers to refurbish the emir’s palace.

Why don’t we tell the Kuwaitis to get with the program? Because we worry that any pressure for reform will destabilize the Kuwaiti regime. Not to mention the Saudi regime, which is deeply threatened by the idea of democracy.

The Bush Administration was threatened by the prospect of becoming involved in a protracted and bloody civil war in Iraq. More Americans would have been killed, and the President’s poll ratings would have suffered. Bush “wants to sign on the dotted line and get the hell out of there,” a senior Administration official said last week. “He has no, I mean absolutely no, intention of putting the United States in the middle of a civil war. The problems of U.S. involvement could far outweigh the problems of (Hussein’s) remaining in power.”

Yet Bush had repeatedly urged the Iraqi people to revolt. On Feb. 15, he said, “There’s another way for the bloodshed to stop and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside.” Then, when the revolt began, we turned down all requests from the Kurds and the Shiites for military support. We refused to recognize any opposition government in exile. And we funneled all emergency food and medical supplies through Hussein’s government in Baghdad.

On March 13, the President said, “These helicopters (that the Iraqi army is using to suppress the rebellions) should not be used for combat purposes inside Iraq.” On March 26, White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater announced that the United States would not shoot down combat helicopters being used against the rebels unless they posed a threat to allied forces.

Why did we refuse to enforce our own policy? Because the Administration wanted to make a political point. In Fitzwater’s words, “We don’t intend to involve ourselves in the internal conflict in Iraq.” Never mind that we occupy 20% of Iraq’s territory and have already shot down two fixed-wing Iraqi aircraft.

The ironies of the situation abound. We fight a war to ensure human rights and self-determination for the Kuwaitis. Then we ignore human rights and self-determination for the Kurds and Shiites. And we ignore violations of human rights and self-determination by the Kuwaitis.

We compare Hussein to Hitler and then say we have no reason to destroy his regime. We pressure Israel and the Arabs to make peace. But we leave Hussein, the biggest obstacle to a Middle East peace settlement, in power. We refuse to help the Shiites because they are too close to Iran. And so we drive them closer to Iran.

The Bush Administration claims that it has a clever two-step strategy to get rid of Hussein. First we allow Hussein to restore control over Iraq and ensure the country’s survival. Then we use economic and military sanctions to force him out of power. Brilliant, yes?

No. By enabling Hussein to crush his opponents, we are strengthening his hold on power. As a former National Security Council staffer put it, “He will have defied the odds and the American occupation. He will have a new lease on life.”

Moreover, look at what we are saying to the Iraqi people. We ask you to rise up against Hussein with no help from us, and at great risk to yourselves. If you fail, we will squeeze you economically until Hussein is forced out. Either you suffer by the sword or you perish by famine.

And the ultimate irony. The Bush Administration scoffed at sanctions as a way to get Hussein out of Kuwait--and at the Democrats who supported sanctions as an alternative to war. So how is the Administration proposing to get Hussein out of Iraq? By sanctions, of course.

While the Kurds were being massacred last week, the President of the United States went fishing. It was Britain’s U.N. representative who said, “My government believes it will be impossible for Iraq to rejoin the family of civilized nations while Saddam Hussein remains in power.” French President Francois Mitterrand told his Cabinet that the U.N.’s “political and moral authority” would be badly damaged if it failed to condemn Iraq’s atrocities against the Kurds.

What did the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations say? “It is too early to speculate on the Kurdish question.” After all, soon there may be no more Kurdish question because there may be no more Kurds.

When Bush announced his new world order last year, many people worried the United States would become policeman to the world. Not to worry. We are more like a private security force, available to help our rich friends when they get in trouble. We only police the high-rent districts. We don’t bother with the slums.