You probably missed this news story. It flew pretty low below the radar in this season of crashingly important events like a grieving mother and a pack of activists camped outside the president’s ranch.

And on the surface of it, there’s not much but curiosity value in a tale of POWs released decades after the end of a forgotten war in a dusty corner of Africa.

More than 400 Moroccan prisoners-of-war released by the Polisario rebels of Western Sahara arrived home, some of them stepping foot on their native soil for the first time in more than 20 years.

Who keeps prisoners so long? What’s the point? What’s the prison cook going to do for a living now?

And why now? That’s the question that makes this interesting.

They were freed as a result of an international effort spearheaded by U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, who accompanied the men to Morocco and said in a written statement that Washington “has long viewed the release of these prisoners as an important humanitarian goal and a constructive step for peace and stability in North Africa.”

Speaking later in Agadir, Lugar urged Morocco and Algeria to “seize on the opportunity presented by the release of all the remaining prisoners to create regional climate conducive to a settlement of the Western Sahara issue.

“I would also hope that the successful resolution of this humanitarian issue would inspire renewed efforts by the parties to work for a political solution, within the framework of the United Nations,” he said.

Ah, well. Typical hegemonistic boilerplate, you say.

The Polisario fought a war with Morocco in the 1970s and ’80s over a strip of desert, a former Spanish colony. The rebels declared a Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and fought as guerrillas. At the start, this was a Cold War affair, with Morocco one of America’s chief allies in the region and the Polisario backed by Soviet-aligned Algeria.

So why is America so interested in pushing for peace there now? Well, if you’ve read your Zinn and Chomsky, you know to look for the natural resources. Sure enough, the Western Sahara, which can boast of little else, is rich in phosphates. And there may be oil off the coast. Hear that sound? The wind in the sand dunes seem to be whispering “Halliburton.”

But wait. Morocco still is one of our chief and most reliable allies in the region. And Morocco right now is firmly in charge of Western Sahara, de facto. So why don’t we just do the usual imperialist thing and stick with the strong horse, in defiance of international legitimacy, and get what we want out of it?

What’s more, why is my own U.S. Representative, Joe Pitts, a rock-ribbed Vietnam vet conservative Christian Republican, involved in this? And why is he taking a Clintonesque line?

“By releasing these prisoners, the Sahrawis have taken away one more excuse Morocco has used to block a free, fair and transparent referendum on the future of Western Sahara. … Morocco is a strong ally, but they are illegally occupying this land, a nation that belongs to a peaceful democratic people.â€Â?

It seems the Sahrawis have established, in exile, a democratic system. And it seems the United States, the Bush Admimistration, and a Republican Congressman with whom I frequently and vehemently disagree, are promoting the democratic, moderate, but disempowered Arab-Muslim people’s movement against our own best friend in the district. Tactfully, but firmly. Working within the United Nations. Working with countries like Algeria.

Good heavens, could it be the Americans really mean all this jaw-jaw about promoting democract in the world?

Oh, it’s still possible to find a thread of self-interest in it. You can do that in any decision a world power makes. Pitts told us he believes the U.S. response to the Sahrawis’ struggle will be seen across the region as a measure of America’s commitment to defending the hopes and aspirations of moderate Muslim-Arab cultures. I hope he’s right. Because as far as I can judge there’s no other way to explain it.