That is a perfect example of what the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu calls the imperialism of the universal-- taking the point of view of a guy with the biggest stick as if it were universal rationality. According to the WSJ logic, the only "rational" way to act in such a situation is to accept the rationality of the bombing and get out of the harm's way. By the same logic, the best way to avoid being raped is to willingly submit to the demands of teh attacker.
Such "reasoning" oozes from mainstream economic and political instiutions, according to Bourdieu. Here are relevant excertpts:
"From the deep inside the Islamic countries there comes a very profound question with regard to the false universalism of the west, or what I call the imperialism of the universal.... It is trye that one form of universalism is no more than a nationalism which invokes th euniversal (human rights, etc.) in order to impose itself... Scientific rationalism - the rationalism of the mathematical models which inspire the policy of the IMF or the World bank, that of the law firms, great juridical multinationals which impose the traditions of American law on the whole planet, that of rational-action theories, etc. -- is both the expression and the justification of a WEstern arrogance, which leads people to act as if they had the monopoly of reason and could set themselves up as world policemen, in other words as self-appointed holders of the monopoply of legitimate violence, capable of applying the force of arms in the service of universal justice. Terrorist violence, through the irrationalism of despair which is almost always at its root, refers back to th einert violence of the powers which invoke reason. Imperialism drapes itself in the legitimacy of international bodies. And, through the very hypocrisy of the rationalizations intended to mask its double standards, it tends to provoke or justify, among the Arab, South American or African peoples, a very profound revolt against the reason which cannot be separated from the abuses of power which are ermed or justified by reason 9economic, scientific or any other). These 'irrationalisms' are partly the product of oour rationalism, imperialist, invasive and conquering or mediocre, narrow, defensive, regressive and repressive, depending on the place and time. One is still defending reason when one fights those who mask their abuses of power under teh appearances of reason or who use the weapons of reason to consolidate or justify an arbitrary empire."
(speech in Frakfurt, October 1995).
>Henry
>
>Carl Remick wrote:
>
>> > I realize that the Chinese media is loudly
>> > trumpeting the rejection of Clinton's apology by
>> > the Chinese government and is claiming that it
>> > was not a mistake. But that is no reason for you
>> > to repeat such silly stuff. This was obviously an
>> > incredibly stupid thing to do, considerably stupider
>> > even than starting the bloody war in the first place.
>>
>> Still, I have been struck by the sullen tone of U.S. media in reporting
>> NATO's blunder. There has been a finger-wagging component in much of
>> the coverage, cautioning the Chinese not to get carried away protesting
>> this incident. American morality has been so (further) corrupted by
>> NATO's intervention that we now clearly resent third parties for getting
>> in the way of our indiscriminate bombing.
>>
>> Carl Remick
>
>