BUSH PROPERLY ROUTES AID TO KURDISH REFUGEES

It was 13 weeks ago that the Persian Gulf War began; seven weeks ago, it ended, and America has settled quickly into its peacetime rhythm. That is not to say the crisis is quelled and risk is erased in all quarters. Iraqi refugees, perhaps as many as 1.7 million, are endangered by the brutal reprisals of their own government. Once more, Saddam Hussein has concocted a threat, this time menacing an almost defenseless Kurdish population. America has responded properly ... with caution. The objectives are lofty and highly moral, but the fight is not the same as it was before.

President Bush, whose popularity has soared because of his handling of the Persian Gulf crisis, has come under intense criticism for his action or his inaction or his belated action (depending on the critic of the moment) in handling the refugee calamity. Criticism develops easily when there is a formidable dilemma in public policy to be overcome. Still, we find little fault with the way the American president has handled the situation; he has approached the problem as the leader of a compassionate nation should, showing a firm hand in delivering aid but stopping short of involvement in another nation's civil affairs.

Relief workers who have witnessed the refugee mayhem are staggered by its scope; some regard it as a possible disaster of almost biblical proportion. Saddam, whose armed forces performed miserably against U.S. and allied opponents, has sent his troops chasing the nation's Kurd population into the mountains of northern Iraq. These masses remain there, in savage terrain, trapped on one side by a ruthless killer and on the other by neighboring nations (Iran and Turkey) unprepared and unwilling to accept this vast problem. These powerless people are exposed to the elements without provisions and dying, by some accounts, at a rate of 1,000 a day.

Having spearheaded the United Nations effort to liberate Kuwait, the United States lacked an international mandate to do more than that job. President Bush faces a dilemma. Should the America involve its troops in the civil conflicts of Iraq? If not, can America, in good conscience, stand by idly while Saddam consolidates his remaining power and oversees the deaths of thousands of his citizens?

In providing direction for U.S.-protected relief camps inside Iraq, President Bush is taking a cautious but meaningful approach. He has committed a troop presence that will be sufficient for Kurdish refugees to get unhindered assistance. Still, the president maintains a desire for American troops not to get bogged down in another nation's internal problems. He said "not another Vietnam" and he means it.

Separate from the war effort, this is a humanitarian gesture, one launched courageously in the face of Saddam's ongoing and despotic aggression. Bush, rather than being diminished by critics, should be praised for his leadership. As in the war, our prayers should follow these efforts.