<?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 > Nick Turse</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/nick_turse/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 00:00:00 +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>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>The final unraveling of Afghanistan?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/the_final_unraveling_of_afghanistan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/the_final_unraveling_of_afghanistan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12446841</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The massive anti-Quran-burning protests may mark the beginning of the end of America's military misadventure]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it all over but the (anti-American) shouting -- and the killing? Are the exits finally coming into view?</p><p>Sometimes, in a moment, the fog lifts, the clouds shift, and you can finally see the landscape ahead with startling clarity. In Afghanistan, Washington may be reaching that moment in a state of panic, horror and confusion. Even as an anxious U.S. commander <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/02/us-commander-pulls-back-advisers-from-afghan-ministries.html">withdrew</a> American and NATO advisors from Afghan ministries around Kabul last weekend -- approximately 300, military spokesman James Williams tells TomDispatch -- the ability of American soldiers to remain on giant fortified bases eating pizza and fried chicken into the distant future is not in doubt.</p><p>No set of Taliban guerrillas, suicide bombers or armed Afghan “allies” turning their guns on their American “brothers” can alter that -- not as long as Washington is ready to bring the necessary supplies into <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/police-say-they-have-arrested-an-american-at-a-pakistani-airport-with-bullets-in-his-luggage/2012/02/14/gIQAtLZTCR_story.html">semi-blockaded Afghanistan</a> at <a href="http://www.military.com/news/article/costs-soar-for-new-war-supply-routes.html">staggering cost</a>. But sometimes that’s the least of the matter, not the essence of it. So if you’re in a mood to mark your calendars, late February 2012 may be the moment when the end game for America’s second Afghan War, launched in October 2001, was initially glimpsed.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/the_final_unraveling_of_afghanistan/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/the_final_unraveling_of_afghanistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</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>Why drones aren&#8217;t game-changers</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/why_drones_arent_game_changers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/why_drones_arent_game_changers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10698011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A streak of recent crashes shows just how flawed these remotely piloted aircrafts are]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The drone had been in the air for close to five hours before its mission crew realized that something was wrong. The oil temperature in the plane’s turbocharger, they noticed, had risen into the “cautionary” range. An hour later, it was worse, and it just kept rising as the minutes wore on. While the crew desperately ran through its “engine overheat” checklist trying to figure out the problem, the engine oil temperature, too, began skyrocketing.</p><p>By now, they had a full-blown in-flight emergency on their hands. “We still have control of the engine, but engine failure is imminent,” the pilot announced over the radio.</p><p>Almost two hours after the first signs of distress, the engine indeed failed. Traveling at 712 feet per minute, the drone clipped a fence before crashing.</p><p><strong>Land of the Lost Drones</strong></p><p>The skies seem full of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/drone-crashes-in-seychelles/2011/12/13/gIQAQ3PsrO_blog.html">falling drones</a> these days. The most publicized of them made headlines when Iran announced that its military had taken possession of an advanced American remotely piloted spy aircraft, thought to be an RQ-170 Sentinel.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/why_drones_arent_game_changers/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/20/why_drones_arent_game_changers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</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>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>How many secret wars are we fighting?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/secert_american_wars/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/secert_american_wars/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></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/2011/08/04/secert_american_wars</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U.S. special ops forces are being deployed in more and more nations -- and the public has no idea]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Somewhere on this planet an American commando is carrying out a mission. Now, say that 70 times and you're done... for the day. Without the knowledge of the American public, a secret force within the U.S. military is undertaking operations in a majority of the world's countries. This new Pentagon power elite is waging a global war whose size and scope has never been revealed, until now.</p><p>After a U.S. Navy SEAL put a bullet in Osama bin Laden's chest and another in his <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all">head</a>, one of the most secretive black-ops units in the American military suddenly found its mission in the public spotlight. It was atypical. While it's well known that U.S. Special Operations forces are deployed in the war zones of Afghanistan and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/world/middleeast/03iraq.html">Iraq</a>, and it's increasingly apparent that such units operate in murkier conflict zones like <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/08/110808fa_fact_schmidle?currentPage=all">Yemen</a> and <a href="http://www.nationinstitute.org/featuredwork/fellows/2283/the_cia%27s_secret_sites_in_somalia/?page=entire">Somalia</a>, the full extent of their worldwide war has remained deeply in the shadows.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/secert_american_wars/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/08/04/secert_american_wars/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arab Spring won&#8217;t &#8220;reset&#8221; our Middle East policy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/17/no_policy_reset_in_middle_east/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/17/no_policy_reset_in_middle_east/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 17:01:00 +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[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/05/17/no_policy_reset_in_middle_east</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don't buy Obama's lofty rhetoric. The Pentagon and the White House will keep propping up local dictators]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you follow the words, one Middle East comes into view; if you follow the weapons, quite another.</p><p>This week, the words will take center stage. On <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0513/Obama-speech-He-must-consult-Congress-on-strategy-toward-Arab-Spring">Thursday</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/politics/12prexy.html?_r=1&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss">according to administration officials</a>, President Obama will "reset" American policy in the Middle East with a major address offering a comprehensive look at the Arab Spring, "a unified theory about the popular uprisings from Tunisia to Bahrain," and possibly a new administration approach to the region.</p><p>In the meantime, all signs indicate that the Pentagon will quietly maintain antithetical policies, just as it has throughout the Obama years. Barring an unprecedented and almost inconceivable policy shift, it will continue to broker lucrative deals to send weapons systems and military equipment to Arab despots. Nothing indicates that it will be deterred from its course, whatever the president says, which means that Barack Obama's reset rhetoric is unlikely to translate into meaningful policy change in the region.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/17/no_policy_reset_in_middle_east/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/05/17/no_policy_reset_in_middle_east/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Arab lobby</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/robert_gates_bahrain_obama_middle_east_protests/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/robert_gates_bahrain_obama_middle_east_protests/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Gates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/03/15/robert_gates_bahrain_obama_middle_east_protests</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the tiny kingdom of Bahrain strong-armed the President of the United States into opposing democracy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>This piece originally appeared on&#160;</em> <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com"><em>TomDispatch</em></a> <em>.</em></p><p>The men walking down the street looked ordinary enough. Ordinary, at least, for these days of tumult and protest in the Middle East. They wore sneakers and jeans and long-sleeved T-shirts. Some waved the national flag. Many held their hands up high. Some flashed peace signs. A number were chanting, "Peaceful, peaceful."</p><p>Up ahead, <a href="http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/latest-updates-on-middle-east-protests-5/?partner=rss&amp;emc=rss">video footage shows</a>, armored personnel carriers sat in the street waiting. In a deadly raid the previous day, security forces had cleared pro-democracy protesters from the Pearl Roundabout in Bahrain's capital, Manama. This evening, the men were headed back to make their voices heard.</p><p>The unmistakable crack-crack-crack of gunfire then erupted, and most of the men scattered. Most, but not all. Video footage shows three who never made it off the blacktop. One in an aqua shirt and dark track pants was unmistakably shot in the head. In the time it takes for the camera to pan from his body to the armored vehicles and back, he's visibly lost a large amount of blood.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/robert_gates_bahrain_obama_middle_east_protests/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/03/15/robert_gates_bahrain_obama_middle_east_protests/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Just how many bases does the Pentagon have?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/10/pentagon_military_bases_abroad/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/10/pentagon_military_bases_abroad/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/01/10/pentagon_military_bases_abroad</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No one has the answer to that simple question. But whatever the exact number is, it needs to shrink -- soon]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The United States has 460 bases overseas! It has 507 permanent bases! What is the U.S doing with more than 560 foreign bases?&#160; Why does it have 662 bases abroad?&#160; Does the United States&#160;really&#160;have more than 1,000 military bases across the globe?</p><p>In a world of statistics and precision, a world in which "accountability" is now a Washington buzzword, a world where all information is available at the click of a mouse, there's one number no American knows. Not the president. Not the Pentagon. Not the experts. No one.&#160;</p><p>The man who wrote the definitive book on it didn't know for sure. The Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist didn't even come close. Yours truly has written numerous articles on U.S. military bases and even <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805089195/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20">part of a book</a> on the subject, but failed like the rest.&#160;</p><p>There are more than 1,000 U.S. military bases dotting the globe. To be specific, the most accurate count is 1,077. Unless it's 1,088. Or, if you count differently, 1,169. Or even 1,180. Actually, the number might even be higher. Nobody knows for sure.</p><p>
    <strong>Keeping Count</strong>
  </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/10/pentagon_military_bases_abroad/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/10/pentagon_military_bases_abroad/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Army digs in for the long haul in Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/22/afghanistan_war_permanent_bases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/22/afghanistan_war_permanent_bases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/10/21/afghanistan_war_permanent_bases</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite promised 2011 drawback, the U.S. keeps building new military bases that are made to last]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some go by names steeped in military tradition like Leatherneck and&#160;<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:E20MR2-108:">Geronimo</a>. Many sound fake-tough, like&#160;<a href="http://militarytimes.com/blogs/line-of-sight/tag/fob-ramrod/">Ramrod</a>,&#160;<a href="http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2010/09/25/u-s-afghan-servicemembers-respond-during-attack/">Lightning</a>, Cobra, and&#160;<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124224652409516525.html">Wolverine</a>. Some display a local flavor, like&#160;<a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/afghanistan_january_2010.html">Orgun-E</a>, Howz-e-Madad, and Kunduz. All, however, have one thing in common: They are U.S. and allied forward operating bases, also known as FOBs. They are part of a&#160;<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175204/tomgram:_nick_turse,_america%27s_shadowy_base_world/">base-building surge</a>&#160;that has left the countryside of Afghanistan dotted with military posts, themselves expanding all the time, despite the drawdown of forces promised by President Obama beginning in July 2011.&#160;</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/10/22/afghanistan_war_permanent_bases/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/10/22/afghanistan_war_permanent_bases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The wacky world of American war quiz</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/14/american_war_afghanistan_iraq_quiz/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/14/american_war_afghanistan_iraq_quiz/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/09/14/american_war_afghanistan_iraq_quiz</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four weeks of war news you wouldn't believe if it weren't in the newspapers]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, it would be funny if it weren't so grim. After all, when it comes to squandering money and resources in strange and distant places (or even here at home), you can count on the practitioners of American-style war to be wildly over the top.</p><p>Oh, those madcap Pentagon bureaucrats and the zany horde of generals and admirals who go with them!&#160; Give them credit: No one on Earth knows how to throw a war like they do -- and they never go home.</p><p>In fact, when it comes to linking "profligate" to "war," with all the lies, manipulations and cost overruns that give it that proverbial pizzazz, Americans should stand tall. We are absolutely No. 1!</p><p>Hence, the very first TomDispatch&#160;American Way of War Quiz. Admittedly, it covers only the last four weeks of war news you wouldn't believe if it weren't in the papers, but we could have done this for any month since October 2001.</p><p>Now's your chance to pit your wits (and your ability to suspend disbelief) against the best the Pentagon has to offer -- and we're talking about all 17-and-a-half miles of corridors in that five-sided, five-story edifice that has triple the square footage of the Empire State Building. To weigh your skills on the TomDispatch Scales of War&#8482;, take the 11-question pop quiz below, checking your answers against ours (with accompanying explanations), and see if you deserve to be a four-star general, a gun-totin' mercenary, or a mere private.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/09/14/american_war_afghanistan_iraq_quiz/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/09/14/american_war_afghanistan_iraq_quiz/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>As tar balls hit Gulf beaches, taxpayers foot the bill</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/17/bp_oil_spill_pentagon_taxpayers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/17/bp_oil_spill_pentagon_taxpayers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gulf Oil Spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/17/bp_oil_spill_pentagon_taxpayers</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama talks tough about cracking down on BP, but the government subsidizes the company via military contracts]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,&#160;and Florida are livid with BP in the wake of the massive, never-ending oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- and Barack Obama says they ought to be. But there's one aspect of the BP story that most of those angry residents of the Gulf states aren't aware of. And the president hasn't had a thing to say about it.</p><p>Even as the tar balls hit Gulf beaches, their tax dollars are subsidizing BP and so far, President Obama has not shown the slightest indication that he plans to stop their flow into BP coffers, despite the recent call of Public Citizen, a watchdog group, to end the nation's business dealings with company. &#160;In fact, the Department of Defense, which has a longstanding, multi-billion dollar business relationship with BP, tells TomDispatch that it has no plans to sever current business ties or curtail future contracts with the oil giant.</p><p>
    <strong>Talking Tough</strong>
  </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/06/17/bp_oil_spill_pentagon_taxpayers/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/06/17/bp_oil_spill_pentagon_taxpayers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>War, American-style</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/05/what_to_watch_for_in_2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/05/what_to_watch_for_in_2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 01:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2010/01/04/what_to_watch_for_in_2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As 2010 begins in turmoil, 10 questions to ask about U.S. military presence in distant lands]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We think of ourselves as something like the peaceable kingdom. After all, the shock of Sept. 11, 2001, was that "war" came to "the homeland," a mighty blow delivered against the very symbols of our economic, military and -- had Flight 93 not gone down in a field in Pennsylvania -- political power.</p><p>Since that day, however, war has been a stranger in our land. With the rarest of exceptions, like Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan's massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, this country has remained a world without war or any kind of mobilization for war. No other major terrorist attacks, not even victory gardens, scrap-metal collecting, or rationing. And certainly no war tax to pay for our post-9/11 trillion-dollar "expeditionary forces" sent into battle abroad.</p><p>And yet, if we are no nation of warriors, from the point of view of the rest of the world we are certainly the planet's foremost war-makers. If money talks, then war may be what we care most about as a society and fund above all else, with the least possible discussion or debate.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/01/05/what_to_watch_for_in_2010/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2010/01/05/what_to_watch_for_in_2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Digging in for the long haul in Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/10/afghanistan_infrastructure/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/10/afghanistan_infrastructure/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/11/09/afghanistan_infrastructure</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Pentagon's building boom in Afghanistan indicates a long war ahead]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been <a href="http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ci_13628903">touting the effects</a> of his policies at home, reporting that this year's Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was "the largest investment in infrastructure since [President Dwight] Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s." At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been under way. This one in Afghanistan.</p><p>While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year -- ranging from small-scale <a href="http://afghanistan.usaid.gov/en/Article.853.aspx">power plants</a> to "public latrines" to a <a href="http://afghanistan.usaid.gov//en/Article.734.aspx">meat market</a> -- the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-size sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/11/10/afghanistan_infrastructure/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/11/10/afghanistan_infrastructure/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the U.S. military can&#8217;t do</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/26/military_7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/26/military_7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2009/10/25/military</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama's choice: Failed war president, or the prince of peace]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When the Nobel Committee awarded its annual peace prize to President Barack Obama, it afforded him a golden opportunity seldom offered to American war presidents: the possibility of success. Should he decide to go the peacemaker route, Obama stands a chance of really accomplishing something significant. On the other hand, history suggests that the path of war is a surefire loser. As president after president has discovered, especially since World War II, the U.S. military simply can't seal the deal on winning a war.</p><p>While the armed forces can do many things, the one thing that has generally escaped them is that ultimate endpoint: lasting victory. This might have been driven home recently -- had anyone noticed -- when, in the midst of the Washington debate over the Afghan war, a forgotten front in President George W. Bush's global war on terror, the Philippines popped back into the news. On Sept. 25, New York Times correspondent Norimitsu Onishi <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/world/asia/26phils.html?hp">wrote</a>:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/10/26/military_7/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/10/26/military_7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush officials: Where are they now?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/22/bush_officials/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/22/bush_officials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dick Cheney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Donald Rumsfeld]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/22/bush_officials</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The unemployment rate is high around the country -- but not for former Bush officials. A guide to who's cashing in]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In May, the U.S. economy <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2009/06/01/daily62.html">lost</a> 345,000 nonfarm jobs, pushing the unemployment rate from 8.9 percent to 9.4 percent. According to official statistics, 14.5 million Americans are now looking for work and, as a recent <a href="http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2009/06/08/another-jobless-recovery/">headline</a> at Time.com put it, "The jobs aren't coming back anytime soon." In fact, a team of economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank recently <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0832136320090608">reported</a> that "the level of labor market slack could be higher by the end of 2009 than at any other time in the post-World War Two period."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2009/06/22/bush_officials/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2009/06/22/bush_officials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>44</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

