<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Pentagon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/pentagon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 06:12:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s secret warriors</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/obamas_secret_warriors/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/obamas_secret_warriors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 May 2012 14:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12928852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Under his watch, the military's least accountable assets have become the pinnacle of military prestige]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As he campaigns for reelection, President Obama periodically reminds audiences of his success in terminating the deeply unpopular Iraq War. With fingers crossed for luck, he vows to do the same with the equally unpopular war in Afghanistan. If not exactly a peacemaker, our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president can (with some justification) at least claim credit for being a war-ender.</p><p>Yet when it comes to military policy, the Obama administration’s success in shutting down wars conducted in plain sight tells only half the story, and the lesser half at that. More significant has been this president’s enthusiasm for instigating or expanding secret wars, those conducted out of sight and by commandos.</p><p>President Franklin Roosevelt may not have invented the airplane, but during World War II he transformed strategic bombing into one of the principal emblems of the reigning American way of war. General Dwight D. Eisenhower had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. Yet, as president, Ike’s strategy of Massive Retaliation made nukes the centerpiece of U.S. national security policy.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/obamas_secret_warriors/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/obamas_secret_warriors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Has the Pentagon learned nothing?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/has_the_pentagon_learnt_nothing_salpart/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/has_the_pentagon_learnt_nothing_salpart/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vietnam War]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12908588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Army\'s response to the attacks in Kabul reflects deadly misunderstandings that date back to the Vietnam War]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recently, after insurgents unleashed sophisticated, synchronized attacks across Afghanistan involving dozens of fighters armed with suicide vests, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms, as well as car bombs, the Pentagon was quick to emphasize what hadn’t happened.  “I’m not minimizing the seriousness of this, but this was in no way akin to the Tet Offensive,” <a href="http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67948">said</a> George Little, the Pentagon’s top spokesman.  “We are looking at suicide bombers, RPG [rocket propelled grenade], mortar fire, etcetera. This was not a large-scale offensive sweeping into Kabul or other parts of the country.”</p><p>Defense Secretary Leon Panetta <a href="http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=67951">weighed in</a> similarly.  “There were,” he insisted, “no tactical gains here. These are isolated attacks that are done for symbolic purposes, and they have not regained any territory.”  Such sentiments were echoed by many in the <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june12/afghanistan2_04-16.html">media</a>, who emphasized that the attacks “didn’t accomplish much” or were “<a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/ND19Df01.html">unsuccessful</a>.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/has_the_pentagon_learnt_nothing_salpart/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/has_the_pentagon_learnt_nothing_salpart/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conservatives mad at liberal media, Obama over Afghanistan photos</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/conservatives_mad_at_liberal_media_obama_over_afghanistan_photos/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/conservatives_mad_at_liberal_media_obama_over_afghanistan_photos/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12891021</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Confused right-wing responses to a grisly scandal]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The L.A. Times Wednesday published photos of American troops in Afghanistan posing and grinning with the body parts of dead Afghan insurgents. There are 18 photos in all of soldiers posing with human remains, all from 2010, and the Times published two of them. The newspaper received the photos from a soldier in the unit depicted, who, according to Times editors, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-maharaj-chat-20120418,0,5438409.story">sought to publicize</a> "dysfunction in discipline and a breakdown in leadership that compromised the safety of the troops."</p><p>The L.A. Times informed the Pentagon of its story and waited 72 hours before publishing. The Army, notably, had not launched a criminal investigation into the troops responsible for the photos until the Times contacted them. The Obama administration and the Pentagon have both condemned the soldiers responsible for the pictures, but also expressed disappointment in the Times for publishing them. Wired's Spencer Ackerman refers to the photos as <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/afghan-corpses/">"yet another unforced error" for U.S. forces</a> in Afghanistan. It's a depressing and disturbing story, from a long and miserable war.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/conservatives_mad_at_liberal_media_obama_over_afghanistan_photos/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/conservatives_mad_at_liberal_media_obama_over_afghanistan_photos/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The GOP&#8217;s bloated Pentagon dreams</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/the_gops_bloated_pentagon_dreams/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/the_gops_bloated_pentagon_dreams/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12705831</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Romney and Santorum would both significantly expand America's unsustainable military budget]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: left;">If you’ve been fretting about faltering math education and falling test scores here in the United States, you should be worried based on this campaign season of Republican math. When it comes to the American military, the leading Republican presidential candidates evidently only learned to add and multiply, never subtract or divide.</p><p>Advocates of Pentagon reform have criticized President Obama for his <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/06/opinion/rumbaugh-defense-cutbacks/index.html">timid approach</a> to reducing military spending. Despite current Pentagon budgets that have hovered at the highest levels since World War II and 13 years of steady growth, the administration’s latest plans would only <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/01/obama_s_pentagon_budget_cuts_panetta_s_defense_department_cuts_are_surprisingly_modest_.html">reduce spending</a> at the Department of Defense by 1.6 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars over the next five years.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/the_gops_bloated_pentagon_dreams/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/20/the_gops_bloated_pentagon_dreams/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Pentagon&#8217;s amnesia-inducing propaganda</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_pentagons_amnesia_inducing_propaganda/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_pentagons_amnesia_inducing_propaganda/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12413401</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The military's first feature-length film wants to make Americans forget about our imperialist misadventures]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When philosopher George Santayana said "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," he meant it as an admonition -- not as an endorsement of mass amnesia or historical revision. This should be obvious. Yet those operating at the shadowy intersection of the Pentagon and Hollywood either don't understand - or more likely, refuse to understand -- the thrust of the aphorism. Instead, with this week's release of a much-awaited film, Santayana's omen has been transformed into a public mission statement for a burgeoning Military-Entertainment Complex.</p><p>Since 1986's "Top Gun" rekindled the Pentagon-Hollywood relationship from its post-Vietnam doldrums, the collusion between the military and the entertainment industry has become a blockbuster con, generating huge benefits for both participants -- and swindling the American public in the process.</p><p>The scheme is simple: The Pentagon allows studios to use military hardware and bases at a discounted, taxpayer-subsidized rate. In exchange, filmmakers must submit their scripts to the Pentagon for line edits. Not surprisingly, those edits often redact criticism of military policy, revise depictions of historical failures, and generally omit anything else that might make audiences wonder if our current defense policy is repeating past mistakes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_pentagons_amnesia_inducing_propaganda/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/the_pentagons_amnesia_inducing_propaganda/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>80</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Our non-withdrawal from Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/our_non_withdrawal_from_afghanistan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/our_non_withdrawal_from_afghanistan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12347261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite the alleged 2014 end date, the military has ramped up its construction of long-term bases]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In late December, the lot was just a big blank: a few burgundy metal shipping containers sitting in an expanse of crushed eggshell-colored gravel inside a razor-wire-topped fence. The American military in Afghanistan doesn’t want to talk about it, but one day soon, it will be a new hub for the American drone war in the Greater Middle East.</p><p>Next year, that empty lot will be a two-story concrete intelligence facility for America’s drone war, brightly lit and filled with powerful computers kept in climate-controlled comfort in a country where most of the population has no access to <a href="http://www.worldbank.org.af/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/AFGHANISTANEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20154015%7EmenuPK:305990%7EpagePK:1497618%7EpiPK:217854%7EtheSitePK:305985,00.html">electricity</a>. It will boast almost 7,000 square feet of offices, briefing and conference rooms, and a large “processing, exploitation and dissemination” operations center -- and, of course, it will be built with American tax dollars.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/our_non_withdrawal_from_afghanistan/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/our_non_withdrawal_from_afghanistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Female soldiers fight the brass ceiling</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/11/female_soldiers_fight_the_brass_ceiling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/11/female_soldiers_fight_the_brass_ceiling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12333331</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While relenting on gay soldiers, the Pentagon still excludes women from combat]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having dragged its feet for almost two full decades on letting openly gay citizens serve in the military, <a href="http://www.defense.gov/">the Defense Department is now “evolving”</a> on women in combat. Those sex roles move at a geological pace, don’t they?</p><p>On Thursday, the Pentagon released a report allowing a trickle more of estrogen into the front lines, with women now officially assigned, instead of informally attached, to battalions. But despite an explicit recommendation from a panel of neutral experts, still no ground fighting, no combat infantry, no special forces. In a press release, the women veterans’ Service Women’s Action Network “regretted” the failure to lift the “unfair” Combat Exclusion Policy, which precludes women from becoming infantry members.</p><p>Will they never learn? A year ago, the lame duck Congress finally voted an end to the despised exclusion of openly gay men and women from the service, “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The same arguments – unit cohesion, unfitness for combat – that were used against open gay service now live on as the last barriers to women. For however many women are fit enough and inclined to take those hard-line jobs, as for the many dedicated gay and lesbian service members, the exclusions are an insurmountable barrier to their aspirations and a costly waste of human power for the country.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/11/female_soldiers_fight_the_brass_ceiling/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/11/female_soldiers_fight_the_brass_ceiling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>92</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon contractors flock to Mrs. McKeon</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/pentagon_contractors_flock_to_mrs_mckeon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/pentagon_contractors_flock_to_mrs_mckeon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign Finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12276781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why are defense lobbyists funding the pet crusade of the wife of Buck McKeon, House Armed Services Committee chair?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patricia McKeon, wife of a powerful committee chairman in Congress, announced her bid for California Legislature last fall by <a href="http://thesecondalarm.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/patriciamckeon.pdf" target="_blank">telling</a> local Republicans that she decided to run for office because she's fed up with the plastic bag tax in Los Angeles County. "Just think how much food we could buy if we weren't forced to pay 10 cents for grocery bags," she said in announcing her campaign. Within <a href="http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1341424&amp;session=2011&amp;view=received" target="_blank">days</a> of her official announcement, one industry stepped up to finance her campaign -- but it wasn't the plastic bag industry. It was military defense contractors and their Beltway lobbyists.</p><p>Disclosures posted last evening at the <a href="http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1341424&amp;session=2011&amp;view=received ">California secretary of state's website</a> confirm that a flood of military contractor money has flowed to Patricia McKeon, who is running for an open Assembly seat in a district that overlaps that of her husband, Republican Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/pentagon_contractors_flock_to_mrs_mckeon/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/01/pentagon_contractors_flock_to_mrs_mckeon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Manning, Washington&#8217;s favorite scapegoat</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/manning_washingtons_favorite_scapegoat/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/manning_washingtons_favorite_scapegoat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bradley Manning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WikiLeaks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12196581</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The only civilian casualties D.C.'s warmongers ever talk about are the hypothetical ones "caused" by WikiLeaks]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who in their right mind wants to talk about, think about or read a short essay about... <em>civilian war casualties</em>? What a bummer, this topic, especially since our Afghan Iraq and other ongoing wars were advertised as uplifting acts of philanthropy: wars to spread security, freedom, democracy, human rights, gender equality, the rule of law, <em>etc</em>.</p><p>A couple hundred thousand dead civilians have a way of making such noble ideals seem like dollar-store tinsel. And so, throughout our decade-long foreign policy debacle in the Greater Middle East, we in the U.S. have generally agreed that no one shall commit the gaucherie of dwelling on (and “dwelling on” = fleetingly mentioned) civilian casualties. Washington elites may squabble over some things, but as for foreigners killed by our numerous wars, our Beltway crew adheres to a sullen code of <em>omertà.</em></p><p>Club rules do, however, permit one loophole: Washington officials may bemoan the nightmare of civilian casualties -- but only if they can be pinned on a 24-year-old Army private first class named Bradley Manning.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/manning_washingtons_favorite_scapegoat/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/19/manning_washingtons_favorite_scapegoat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s &#8220;mission accomplished&#8221; moment?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/obamas_mission_accomplished_moment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/obamas_mission_accomplished_moment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12114261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the Pentagon, the president whitewashes the Afghan war and looks to continue a disastrous military-first policy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here’s the ad for this moment in Washington (as I imagine it): Militarized superpower adrift and anxious in alien world. Needs advice. Will pay. Pls respond qkly. PO Box 1776-2012, Washington, DC.</p><p>Here’s the way it actually went down in Washington last week: a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review">triumphant performance</a> by a commander-in-chief who wants you to know that he’s at the top of his game.</p><p>When it came to rolling out a new 10-year plan for the future of the U.S. military, the leaks to the media began early and the message was clear. One man is in charge of your future safety and security. His name is Barack Obama. And -- not to worry -- he has things in hand.</p><p>Unlike the typical president, so the reports went, he <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/obama-to-unveil-austere-pentagon-strategy/2012/01/04/gIQAMRBRbP_print.html">held</a> six (count 'em: six!) meetings with top Pentagon officials, the Joint Chiefs, the service heads and his military commanders to plan out the next decade of American war making. And he was no civilian bystander at those meetings either. On a planet where <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country">no other power</a> has more than two aircraft carriers in service, he <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45880843/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/#.Twmxv0rByUc">personally nixed</a> a Pentagon suggestion that the country’s aircraft carrier battle groups be reduced from 11 to 10, lest China think our power-projection capabilities were weakening in Asia.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/obamas_mission_accomplished_moment/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/obamas_mission_accomplished_moment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s revolution in American strategy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/obamas_revolution_in_american_strategy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/obamas_revolution_in_american_strategy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12003141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So much for “World War III” and “the Long War”]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While the media has focused on the Republican presidential primaries, offstage the greatest revolution in American foreign policy in a generation has occurred, with little discussion or debate surrounding its <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/05/obama_announces_new_defense_strategy_and_spending_112676.html">announcement</a> last week by President Obama.</p><p>The relative lack of controversy marks a contrast with the last great transformation of American foreign policy, which took place at the end of the Cold War.  Even before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was clear that the Soviet-American conflict that had structured U.S. foreign policy since the late 1940s was coming to an end.  For several years there was a vigorous debate in the mainstream media as well as expert circles about what should replace the Cold War strategy of containment of communism as the basis of American grand strategy.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/obamas_revolution_in_american_strategy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/obamas_revolution_in_american_strategy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Republican plan for the Pentagon</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/09/obamas_republican_plan_for_the_pentagon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/09/obamas_republican_plan_for_the_pentagon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12000081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Like Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan, the president prunes the military just a little
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As might be expected, President Obama’s new defense strategy and budget, which he unveiled at the Pentagon last week, was promptly condemned by many Republicans and defense hawks. Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, characterized it as “a lead from behind strategy for a left behind America” and said that “the president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.”</p><p>But <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/07/obamas_dangerous_pentagon_budget_cuts/singleton/">close analysis</a> of the Obama plan shows that he is in fact following in the footsteps of Republican foreign policy stalwarts Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and H.W. Bush. These presidents changed our strategy and reduced defense spending in real terms when the United States ended wars and /or was confronting budget problems. Moreover, the cuts in spending and manpower that Obama is proposing to support his new strategy are far less than his Republican predecessors.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/09/obamas_republican_plan_for_the_pentagon/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/09/obamas_republican_plan_for_the_pentagon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Did America help stifle the Arab Spring?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/did_america_help_stifle_the_arab_spring/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/did_america_help_stifle_the_arab_spring/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arab Spring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10316065</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Bahrain to Morocco, the Pentagon worked to prop up oppressive regimes]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the Arab Spring blossomed and President Obama hesitated about whether to speak out in favor of protesters seeking democratic change in the Greater Middle East, the Pentagon acted decisively. It forged ever deeper ties with some of the most repressive regimes in the region, <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175159/tomgram:_nick_turse,_out_of_iraq,_into_the_gulf/">building up</a> <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175338/">military bases</a> and <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175393/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_obama_and_the_mideast_arms_trade">brokering weapons sales</a> and transfers to <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/03/2011316131230188238.html">despots</a> from <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175367/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_the_pentagon_and_murder_in_bahrain">Bahrain</a> to <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175385/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_how_to_arm_a_dictator">Yemen</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/did_america_help_stifle_the_arab_spring/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/13/did_america_help_stifle_the_arab_spring/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Armed Forces, military contractors, right-wing hacks all agree: Never cut defense spending</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/armed_forces_military_contractors_right_wing_hacks_all_agree_never_cut_defense_spending/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/armed_forces_military_contractors_right_wing_hacks_all_agree_never_cut_defense_spending/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 18:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbyists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10159866</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite DC consensus on the importance of "tackling the deficit," no one wants to touch the guns and bombs budget]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here's a short list of things that most of the Washington establishment agrees on: The federal budget deficit is the single most pressing issue facing the nation today and also our military must always be powerful enough to face any conceivable present or future threat. When those principles come into opposition, regular people usually lose, because they are not cool stealth fighter planes.</p><p>Wired's Spencer Ackerman <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/army-future-unified-quest/">reports from the Army's "Unified Quest" event</a>, in which the Army "holds a series of wargames and symposia to help it think about its needs for the near future." Its needs generally include funding that matches or exceeds current levels.</p><p>We are, of course, currently drawing down from one of the multiple wars we're fighting, making it harder to justify maintaining such a large Army, but the Army is basically convinced that the world is heading for <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/army-future-unified-quest/">a disastrous post-apocalyptic hellscape scenario:</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/armed_forces_military_contractors_right_wing_hacks_all_agree_never_cut_defense_spending/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/31/armed_forces_military_contractors_right_wing_hacks_all_agree_never_cut_defense_spending/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Air Force gives Lockheed Martin millions to fix busted Lockheed Martin plane</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/air_force_gives_lockheed_martin_millions_to_fix_busted_lockheed_martin_plane/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/air_force_gives_lockheed_martin_millions_to_fix_busted_lockheed_martin_plane/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lockheed Martin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military contractors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10150141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The F-22 Raptor, the world's coolest and most pointless fighter, keeps trying to asphyxiate its pilots]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know how if you buy something that's really expensive and it turns out that it's broken you ask the company that made the thing to fix it, for free, under some sort of "warranty"? That is not how things work in defense contracting. The Air Force <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/lockheed-oxygen/">is giving Lockheed Martin $24 million</a> to figure out why pilots keep passing out from lack of oxygen while flying in Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptors, the most expensive fighters ever built.</p><p>Wired's Danger Room <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/lockheed-oxygen/">reports</a>:</p><blockquote><p>On no fewer than 20 occasions since 2008, Raptor pilots have reported mid-air black-outs, disorientation and other symptoms of oxygen deprivation — a.k.a., “hypoxia” — possibly related to the stealth fighter’s On-Board Oxygen Generation System, built by Honeywell.</p></blockquote><p>Haha, whoops. Well, when you're only able to spend $66.7 billion on a fleet of supermaneuverable stealth fighter aircraft, these things will happen.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/air_force_gives_lockheed_martin_millions_to_fix_busted_lockheed_martin_plane/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/27/air_force_gives_lockheed_martin_millions_to_fix_busted_lockheed_martin_plane/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How America operates its drone empire</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/how_america_operates_its_drone_empire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/how_america_operates_its_drone_empire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10122413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An in-depth analysis identifies 60 bases integral to the U.S. military's clandestine robotic operations]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They increasingly dot the planet. There's a facility outside Las Vegas where "pilots" work in <a href="http://trueslant.com/jefftietz/2009/04/16/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-drone-pilot/">climate-controlled</a> trailers, another at a dusty camp in Africa formerly used by the French Foreign Legion, a third at a big air base in Afghanistan where Air Force personnel sit in front of multiple computer screens, and a fourth at an air base in the United Arab Emirates that almost no one talks about.</p><p>And that leaves at least 56 more such facilities to mention in an expanding American empire of unmanned drone bases being set up worldwide. Despite frequent news reports on the drone assassination campaign launched in support of America's ever-widening undeclared wars and a spate of stories on drone bases in Africa and the Middle East, most of these facilities have remained unnoted, uncounted, and remarkably anonymous -- until now.</p><p>Run by the military, the Central Intelligence Agency, and their proxies, these bases -- some little more than desolate airstrips, others sophisticated command and control centers filled with computer screens and high-tech electronic equipment -- are the backbone of a new American robotic way of war. They are also the latest development in a long-evolving saga of American power projection abroad -- in this case, remote-controlled strikes anywhere on the planet with a minimal foreign "footprint" and little accountability.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/how_america_operates_its_drone_empire/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/how_america_operates_its_drone_empire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Pentagon ties you aren&#8217;t hearing about</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/patty_murray_pentagon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/patty_murray_pentagon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AlterNet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patty Murray]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10104714</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democrat Patty Murray is co-chairing the deficit supercommittee. Why did she accept a defense industry award?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When Senator John Kyl, a Republican member of the "supercommittee" charged with reducing the federal deficits by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, threatened to walk out on the panel if cuts to the defense budget were open for discussion, it was big news. Far less attention, almost none, in fact, has been paid to Democratic Senator Patty Murray, a co-chair of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. But a recent award that the senator from Washington received may say more about the likelihood of cuts to the defense budget than the Arizona Republican's tough talk. So, perhaps, does Murray's refusal to discuss it.</p><p><a href="http://www.alternet.org/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://images.salon.com/img/partners/ID_alternetInline.jpg" alt="AlterNet" align="left" /></a>Last month, Patty Murray was awarded a bronze statuette featuring a little boy with a big smile on his face, running while holding a toy airplane aloft.<span> Presented by the Aerospace Industries Association, a coalition of more than 300 defense and aerospace firms, the "Wings of Liberty Award" was given to Murray "in recognition of her longtime support of the aerospace and defense industry," reads the organization's </span><a href="http://www.aia-aerospace.org/newsroom/aia_news/aia_will_present_2011_wings_of_liberty_award_to_senator_patty_murray/">press release</a>. According to Jim Albaugh, the <a href="http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/execprofiles/albaugh.html">executive vice president</a> of America's second largest defense contractor, Boeing, and the chairman of AIA's Board of Governors, "Senator Murray knows the value of the aerospace and defense industry."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/patty_murray_pentagon/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/10/07/patty_murray_pentagon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deficit-cutting Democrats depend on Pentagon contractors, data shows</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/pentagon_8/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/pentagon_8/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget Showdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/09/21/pentagon</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Members face choice between hurting their donors or cutting your entitlements]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arizona's Republican Sen. Jon Kyl wasted little time. A member of the bipartisan congressional "supercommittee" charged with finding $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions, he did his best to forestall even discussion of cuts to the Pentagon's budget. "When we had our first meeting the chairman asked, 'Well, what do we think about defense spending?' and I said, 'I'm off of the committee if we're gonna talk about further defense spending [cuts],'" he told the audience at a recent forum sponsored by several conservative think tanks.</p><p>The Senate minority whip may be the most outspoken member of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction when it comes to the military budget, but the Democrats currently considering whether to cut the deficit via reductions in defense spending or programs like Medicare and Medicaid have received far more money from Pentagon contractors than Kyl or any of their Republican colleagues on the panel, according to an investigation by Alternet, with assistance from the Brave New Foundation and <a href="http://www.salon.com">Salon.com</a>.&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/pentagon_8/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/21/pentagon_8/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Obama&#8217;s destabilizing the world</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/19/obama_global_destablization/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/19/obama_global_destablization/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/09/19/obama_global_destablization</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[American troops are on the ground in an increasing number of volatile countries -- and they're making things worse]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's a story that should take your breath away: the destabilization of what, in the Bush years, used to be called "the arc of instability." It involves at least 97 countries, across the bulk of the global south, much of it coinciding with the oil heartlands of the planet. A startling number of these nations are now in turmoil, and in every single one of them -- from Afghanistan and Algeria to Yemen and Zambia -- Washington is militarily involved, overtly or covertly, in outright war or what passes for peace.</p><p>Garrisoning the planet is just part of it. The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services are also running covert special forces and spy operations, launching drone attacks, building bases and secret prisons, training, arming, and funding local security forces, and engaging in a host of other militarized activities right up to full-scale war. But while you consider this, keep one fact in mind: the odds are that there is no longer a single nation in the arc of instability in which the United States is in no way militarily involved.</p><p>
    <strong>Covenant of the Arc</strong>
  </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/19/obama_global_destablization/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/19/obama_global_destablization/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Pentagon bloat will kill real deficit cutting</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/16/pentagon_super_committee/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/16/pentagon_super_committee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Budget Showdown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/09/16/pentagon_super_committee</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congress has taken a hostage that no one wants to shoot]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Touted as the "supercommittee" by pundits, the Joint Deficit Reduction Committee -- created by the Aug. 2 debt deal between President Barack Obama and the congressional Republicans -- has turned out to be not so super. The real super-committees of Congress, the appropriations committees, are reasserting their control, and they are doing it with the defense budget, keeping it quite flush with money and unraveling a second round of debt reduction.</p><p>Painful as it is to remember, the August debt deal -- which got the country past the crisis provoked by the Republicans' refusal to allow an increase in the debt ceiling -- requires the supercommittee to find at least $1.2 trillion in budget cuts over the next 10 years. If the 12 congressional Republicans and Democrats on the committee fail to agree on those cuts, automatic reductions are supposed to take place, including $492 billion in the defense budget and over $400 billion elsewhere, according to the <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=124140">Congressional Budget Office</a>.</p><p>Politically, the idea was to apply pressure by threatening the unthinkable, i.e., "We'll shoot the hostage." Either the supercommittee will cut a deal, or the defense budget gets whacked.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/09/16/pentagon_super_committee/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/09/16/pentagon_super_committee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

