<?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 > William J. Astore</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/william_j_astore/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 18:20:37 +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>Drone efficiency is pure fantasy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/drone_warfare_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/drone_warfare_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TomDispatch.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apocalypse Now]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Libya]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13250988</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The deadly air strikes have proven neither cheap nor surgical -- nor especially triumphant]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today’s unmanned aerial vehicles, most famously Predator and Reaper drones, have been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/world/awlaki-strike-shows-us-shift-to-drones-in-terror-fight.html" target="_blank">celebrated</a> as the culmination of the longtime dreams of airpower enthusiasts, offering the possibility of victory through quick, clean, and selective destruction.  Those drones, so the (very old) story goes, assure the U.S. military of command of the high ground, and so provide the royal road to a speedy and decisive triumph over helpless enemies below.</p><p>Fantasies about the certain success of air power in transforming, even ending, war as we know it arose with the plane itself.  But when it comes to killing people from the skies, <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174887" target="_blank">again and again</a> air power has proven neither cheap nor surgical nor decisive nor in itself triumphant.  Seductive and tenacious as the dreams of air supremacy continue to be, much as they automatically attach themselves to the latest machine to take to the skies, air power has not fundamentally softened the brutal face of war, nor has it made war less dirty or chaotic.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/drone_warfare_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/drone_warfare_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can we stop worshipping American generals now?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/29/can_we_stop_worshipping_american_generals_now/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/29/can_we_stop_worshipping_american_generals_now/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gen. Stanley McChrystal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Petraeus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TomDispatch.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13110084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For those devastated by Petraeus' fall from grace, here's a newsflash: We enabled him with our sycophancy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Few things have characterized the post-9/11 American world more than our worshipful embrace of our generals. They’ve become our heroes, our sports stars, and our celebrities all rolled into one. We can’t stop <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174924/engelhardt_falling_upwards" target="_blank">gushing about them</a>. Even after his recent <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175619" target="_blank">fall from grace</a>, General David Petraeus was still being celebrated by CNN as the best American general <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/10/opinion/bergen-petraeus-legacy/index.html" target="_blank">since Dwight D. Eisenhower</a> (and let’s not forget that Ike commanded the largest amphibious invasion in history and held a fractious coalition together in a total war against Nazi Germany). Before <em>his</em> fall from grace, Afghan War Commander General Stanley McChrystal was similarly lauded as <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5344967n" target="_blank">one tough customer</a>, a sort of <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175074/the_pressure_of_an_expanding_war" target="_blank">superman-saint</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/29/can_we_stop_worshipping_american_generals_now/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/29/can_we_stop_worshipping_american_generals_now/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This election&#8217;s true winner</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/this_elections_true_winner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/this_elections_true_winner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 17:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12920811</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It won't be Obama or Romney; it'll be the U.S. military -- and it's going to cost us a lot of money]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now that Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, the media is already handicapping the presidential election big time, and the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57428926-503544/romney-closes-in-on-obama-in-new-polls/">neck-and-neck</a> opinion polls are pouring in.  But whether President Obama gets his second term or Romney enters the Oval Office, there’s a third candidate no one’s paying much attention to, and that candidate is guaranteed to be the one clear winner of election 2012: the U.S. military and our ever-surging national security state.</p><p>The reasons are easy enough to explain.  Despite his record as a “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/president-obama-warrior-in-chief.html">warrior-president</a>,” despite the breathless “<a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/27/selective_bin_laden_leaking/singleton/">Obama got Osama</a>” campaign boosterism, common inside-the-Beltway wisdom has it that the president has backed himself into a national security corner.  He must continue to appear strong and uncompromising on defense or else he’ll get the usual Democrat-as-war-wimp label tattooed on his arm by the Republicans.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/this_elections_true_winner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/this_elections_true_winner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whose army is it?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/whose_army_is_it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/whose_army_is_it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10302086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 99 percent has become dangerously removed from the military-industrial complex that controls our remote wars]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>America’s wars are remote.  They’re remote from us geographically, remote from us emotionally (unless you’re serving in the military or have a close relative or friend who serves), and remote from our major media outlets, which have given us no compelling narrative about them, except that they’re being fought by <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175276/william_astore_our_american_heroes">“America’s heroes”</a> against foreign terrorists and evil-doers.  They’re even being fought, in significant part, by remote control -- by <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175447/tom_engelhardt,_sex_and_the_single_drone">robotic drones</a> “piloted” by ground-based operators from a <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175454/nick_turse_america%27s_secret_empire_of_drone_bases">secret network of bases</a> located hundreds, if not thousands, of miles from the danger of the battlefield.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/whose_army_is_it/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/whose_army_is_it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does America really have the finest military in the world?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/06/american_military_finest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/06/american_military_finest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 20:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War Room]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/politics//war_room/2011/01/06/american_military_finest</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The retired officer in me warms to the sentiment, but the historian in me begs to differ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>This originally appeared at</em> <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/"><em>TomDispatch</em></a></p><p>Words matter, as candidate Barack Obama <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgMcht-EW6I">said</a> in the 2008 election campaign. What to make, then, of President Obama&#8217;s pep talk last month to U.S. troops in Afghanistan in which <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-03/politics/afghanistan.obama_1_ambassador-karl-eikenberry-karzai-aides-president-hamid-karzai?_s=PM:POLITICS">he lauded them</a> as "the finest fighting force that the world has ever known"? Certainly, he knew that those words would resonate with the troops as well as with the folks back home.</p><p>In fact, this sort of description of the U.S. military has become something of a must for American presidents. Obama&#8217;s predecessor George W. Bush, for example, boasted of that military as alternately "the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world" and "the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known." Hyperbolic and self-promoting statements, to be sure, but undoubtedly sincere, reflecting as they do an American sense of exceptionalism that sits poorly with the increasingly interconnected world of the 21st century.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/01/06/american_military_finest/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/01/06/american_military_finest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>100</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In the military we trust</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2008/02/11/american_military/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2008/02/11/american_military/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kerry, D-Mass.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2008/02/11/american_military</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Progressives who want to disarm U.S. militarism must first understand the nation's faith in the military -- one of our least elitist, most diverse institutions. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Recent polls suggest that Americans trust the <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/military/">military</a> roughly three times as much as they trust the president and five times as much as their elected representatives in Congress. The tenacity of this trust is both striking and disturbing. It's striking because it comes despite widespread media coverage of prisoner abuse at <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html?source=search&amp;aim=/news/abu_ghraib">Abu Ghraib,</a> the friendly-fire coverup in the case of <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/25/tillman_lynch/">Pat Tillman's death,</a> and alleged retribution killings by Marines at <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/16/haditha/">Haditha.</a> It's disturbing because our country is founded on civilian control of the military. It's debatable whether our less-than-resolute civilian leaders can now exercise the necessary level of oversight of the military and the <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/pentagon/">Pentagon</a> when they are distrusted by so many Americans. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2008/02/11/american_military/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2008/02/11/american_military/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>56</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
