Journalists are a dying breed in the M$M. They still reside at McClatchy, but no one knows for how much longer.

How to Deal with America's Empire of Bases

Tomgram: Chalmers Johnson, Baseless Expenditures, posted July 02, 2009 10:22 am (see sig)

A Modest Proposal for Garrisoned Lands

The U.S. Empire of Bases -- at $102 billion a year already the world's costliest military enterprise -- just got a good deal more expensive. As a start, on May 27th, we learned that the State Department will build a new "embassy" in Islamabad, Pakistan, which at $736 million will be the second priciest ever constructed, only $4 million less, if cost overruns don't occur, than the Vatican-City-sized one the Bush administration put up in Baghdad. The State Department was also reportedly planning to buy the five-star Pearl Continental Hotel (complete with pool) in Peshawar, near the border with Afghanistan, to use as a consulate and living quarters for its staff there.

Unfortunately for such plans, on June 9th Pakistani militants rammed a truck filled with explosives into the hotel, killing 18 occupants, wounding at least 55, and collapsing one entire wing of the structure. There has been no news since about whether the State Department is still going ahead with the purchase.

Whatever the costs turn out to be, they will not be included in our already bloated military budget, even though none of these structures is designed to be a true embassy -- a place, that is, where local people come for visas and American officials represent the commercial and diplomatic interests of their country. Instead these so-called embassies will actually be walled compounds, akin to medieval fortresses, where American spies, soldiers, intelligence officials, and diplomats try to keep an eye on hostile populations in a region at war. One can predict with certainty that they will house a large contingent of Marines and include roof-top helicopter pads for quick get-aways.

While it may be comforting for State Department employees working in dangerous places to know that they have some physical protection, it must also be obvious to them, as well as the people in the countries where they serve, that they will now be visibly part of an in-your-face American imperial presence. We shouldn't be surprised when militants attacking the U.S. find one of our base-like embassies, however heavily guarded, an easier target than a large military base.

[...]

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175091/chalmers_johnson_baseless_expenditures

I think this difficulty will keep cropping up. Had the Law been brought in as it should have been then we wouldn't have to be having a public discussion that could well become an endless angels on pin heads jobs. What we have is illegal practices having taken place which are not being sorted out by the Law. So the definition of the practices themselves becomes unstable on account of their new extraordinary status. Its a neocon ambition to undermine the law and its bubbling along nicely on this particular front.

On 9/11 Cheney said we'll have to go the dark side. Now comes the time of the rule of men rather than law. This is the wide ripple effect of that policy now affecting the public domestic discourse. And this is deliberate. The more we don't know how to call illegal practices because the law wasn't used the more dependent the citizen becomes for a lead from an increasingly partial and arbitrary authority.

It really wasn't a dichotomy at all, as I would be more than willing to discuss similarities to other, ahem, "service industries".

Truthfully, I was just defending the honor of my own massage therapist, who does a gratefully appreciated and wonderful job at keeping my migraines at bay, something every other nook and cranny of modern medicine has failed miserably at achieving.

Conan isn't even close with his demonstrated skill set.

Give me more enlightenment.

Gladly. I have provided a link at my signature. Read it in its entirety (including all of the linked articles and sources) and you'll have many of your questions answered.

One of those questions might be something along the lines of why some folks hereabouts seem to know so much about a subject which you claim to know so little.

The answer to that, of course, is that some of us actually study the subject and try to learn something about that which we talk about before we talk about it. I am glad you are apparently doing the same but, as my Pappy once said, you'll learn much more and learn it better if you study it yourself rather than asking others to do the heavy lifting for you.

Well, to be honest, my Pappy didn't really say that but I'm sure someone's Pappy at one time or another.

It's certainly true.

Good luck in your quest for enlightenment!

-- Cousin J

:> was kidding.

Isn't it clear that the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan is just another form of "diplomacy", only with bombs and bullets doing the talking? Call it "enhanced diplomacy" if you like.

A former Australian Colonel and Counter Insurgency marketing man and guru favoured by the bush White House who writes books on the subject refers to such operations as "Armed Social Work."

I wonder if they strip him naked, chain him to the wall, don't let him sleep, throw freezing cold water on him every hour, and then strap him down and drown him for a certain amount of time, if NPR will say the Taliban tortured a US soldier.

You are waxing positively amityesque these days in your euphemistic expositions! ;-}

But why does that imply a controversy about using the word, "torture"?

If one believes torture is okay, why would one object to using the word?

I'm not aware of any opinion poll on the issue of whether the public thinks it's somehow improper for the news media to use the word, "torture", but if there were such a poll, would the question actually register as a controversial issue?

A good start but...

Is there a fourth rule regarding taxi drivers who end up dead because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time?

A fifth for people detained as a result of bribes we paid people who got a twofer by pocketing the cash and submitting the names of folks they don't like (for whatever reason)?

Not criticizing, just trying to be more complete while considering the categories of actual detainees we have held as we're creating our Rules of Engagement.