<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Angles on Empire: Book Week at Brown</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.radioopensource.org/angles-on-empire-book-week-at-brown/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.radioopensource.org/angles-on-empire-book-week-at-brown/</link>
	<description>Christopher Lydon in conversation on arts, ideas and politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:35:29 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CommentFromMike</title>
		<link>http://www.radioopensource.org/angles-on-empire-book-week-at-brown/comment-page-1/#comment-162888</link>
		<dc:creator>CommentFromMike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 19:37:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioopensource.org/?p=2759#comment-162888</guid>
		<description>I was struck more by what was not said than by what was said.  Indeed many of these bases can be criticised for the bad things they are - they&#039;re perhaps a form of neo-colonialism with threads back to the days of extra-territorial possessions.  In the extreme, maybe even a form of eco-terrorism.  Sure, all that could be true and those points were made or implied in the Lutz&#039;s remarks.

But what she didn&#039;t say were all the other things that they represent.  You may say what you want about US security policy - take it on if you wish - but forward-basing has many attractions.  It can place elements of the military, and their logistics tails, closer to potential flashpoints; it can put muscle into cooperative security agreements with host nations; it can provide useful, and many cases unique, training environments.

Leaving Open Source&#039;s audience with the impression that overseas bases are,in general a bad idea is, in my opinion, in general a bad idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was struck more by what was not said than by what was said.  Indeed many of these bases can be criticised for the bad things they are &#8211; they&#8217;re perhaps a form of neo-colonialism with threads back to the days of extra-territorial possessions.  In the extreme, maybe even a form of eco-terrorism.  Sure, all that could be true and those points were made or implied in the Lutz&#8217;s remarks.</p>
<p>But what she didn&#8217;t say were all the other things that they represent.  You may say what you want about US security policy &#8211; take it on if you wish &#8211; but forward-basing has many attractions.  It can place elements of the military, and their logistics tails, closer to potential flashpoints; it can put muscle into cooperative security agreements with host nations; it can provide useful, and many cases unique, training environments.</p>
<p>Leaving Open Source&#8217;s audience with the impression that overseas bases are,in general a bad idea is, in my opinion, in general a bad idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
