By
Laura Winsky
Bombs fell over the Baghdad sky Friday night. Civilians were killed. But we don't call it bombing. We called our Iraqi air raids "servicing the target."
So, how do we refer to the civilians who died? Collateral damage?
Not that we ever cared, but it might be nice to take a moment to review what the rest of the world thinks of this decision.
We begin with the praise. Israel supports us. Big shocker there. We support them in their holy war - they have no choice but to back us.
And now the mediocre comments. France is confused and would like to know why we reinstated an Iraqi assault. Maybe we could drop them an e-mail with our rationalization. If we're not too busy.
Finally the criticism. Turkey "reproached us" as a NATO ally "for not informing it beforehand of the attacks and (hoped) such raids would not be repeated." According to Saturday's New York Times, the Arab League attacked us for violating international laws, and the Russian Foreign Ministry sees the attack as "proof that we rely on acts of force...that contradict the UN charter."
One can only wonder how Japan feels about the United States right now. Perhaps, like Britain, they may have agreed that the attack was necessary, but they are probably still trying to make sense of how a U.S. Navy submarine made the decision to give a fun demonstration to wealthy businessmen and accidentally killed several Japanese fishermen a week ago.
The bottom line is that we give the world the impression that we don't care. The United States has never seemed to figure the Earth and its popular sentiments into its decision making. And the United States sure as heck doesn't report to its citizens what the world's nations think of us. It's not good for morale.
President George W. Bush is the poster boy for this exact sentiment of disinterest. He marked his campaign as a rugged individualist cowboy man, and he handled this air strike as such. What's good for his approval rating is good for him. And what's good for him is good for the world.
The bombing - excuse me, the "servicing of the target" - has created backlash, and "Dubya" has been forced to defend himself. The Times also said, "He described the raid as routine." Apparently U.S. policy incorporates the death of humans as routine. What would a national poll say? What would an international poll say? Would the mass populous call for civilian death as a last resort in time of war or a "preemptive strike" as a response to Iraqi "aggression?" Would Bush even care about the results of this theoretical poll? Or would he rather know how each decision might affect his relationship with his citizens, his buddies?
Bush Senior hated two people with a passion during his administration - Sadam Hussein, because the guy appears crazy during interviews and because it was convenient to fight a big, scary monster during a time of economic recession, and former president Bill Clinton, because, with the help of Ross Perot, he stole his presidency.
The fortunate son is here to reclaim Bush territory. He took away some of Clinton's legacy by defeating Gore, and now he's calling back the trusty monster in case our economy turns south.
It's too bad that his noble day job as president is getting in the way of his personal vendettas.
