Whatever one feels about the correctness of our position in the Iraq-Kuwait crisis it is well to consider that this country’s reasons for our involvement are either not exactly as publicly stated, or are unwittingly hypocritical.

Our oil interests are indeed threatened, Bush says. But what he really says is important is that no sovereign state should be taken over. This reason is a persuasive one. After all, if we admit that conquest is still fathomable in today’s world wouldn’t we again risk the horrors of the World Wars?

This assumption also underlines the unspoken Western attitude that, with the end of European imperialism in the 1970’s, the borders of the existing nations are permanently decided. Any new political combination (Germany excepted) is seen today as an unnatural union of different peoples.

George Bush may believe in his heart that the current political order is morally defensible but he is surely aware of how this stasis also benefits this country.

The United States is the richest country in the world today but it certainly has not always been so, and there is no reason to surmise that it always will be.

Any country that enjoys an advantaged position in the world will always be attracted to the established order to preserve its advantage. To do otherwise would be acting against a country’s self-interest. Individuals may occasionally be open to selfless change but nations never are.

America has not always been such a staunch supporter of national integrity. The United States acted suspiciously like Iraq in the last century when it grabbed land from Spain, Mexico, Canada, Russia and most tragically, American Indians.

America’s “manifest destiny” was a declaration of perpetual aggression and was no more noble, no more justified than Germany’s “lebensraum,” Kipling’s “white man’s burden” or Saddam’s “pan-Arabic” superstate.

The hypocracy of the situation, then, is not in our country’s actions but in our reasons. Having conquered land the size of Europe in a century we seem to draw a line in time and proclaim that from this point onward national aggression is unacceptable. Everyone, of course, can keep what they already have, thank you.

This kind of thinking shows up in unexpected places. One of the surprises of the 1970’s was how big mining and lumber companies generally supported legislation forbidding new land from being opened up to these activities.

By doing this, though, they were able to cut off land that could have been exploited by their smaller competitors and appear to be environmentally concerned at the same time.

That is also why it is not unusual that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and even Syria are supporting the American reaction. What is important to remember is that it is the goverments that are agreeing to the America-led intervention. A pan-Arabic state with Saddam Hussein at the head of it would certainly put them out of a job.

What the common Arab thinks of all this may be far different. A country that controls 70 percent of the world’s oil would be bad news for most of the world but for Arabs it might well seem like the blessings of Allah.

This is not to say that the U.S. should not be trying to rid Kuwait of Iraqis. We should have the courage to admit, at least to ourselves, that Kuwait for the Kuwaitis might be more important to us than to them.