“In theory, of course, it can be (a target) and it’s quite possible, but you have to see it in context,” Professor Hanson said. There is nothing in particular that makes the new U.S. base standout in the target priorities of terrorists.

The comment is notable first in that it is an implicit acknowledgement that permanent U.S. military installations in nonthreatening countries is one of the primary motivations behind Islamic terrorism, as opposed to the hating-our-freedom line of thought so often proffered by Washington.

Secondly, it isn’t clear the threat of Islamic terrorism was a part of the controversy regarding the newfangled expansion military presence in Australia. Instead, issues of profligacy in times of austerity, needless provocation of China, and realities on the ground at the new base were paramount.

As Brown University Professor Catherine Lutz has said, “The United States has a vast and expensive network of roughly 1000 military bases around the world. To add another in Australia flies in the face both of organized calls from many quarters to reduce that number as well as the certainty that this will stimulate further military competition and spending by China in response.”

“U.S. military base expansion in Guam,” Lutz explained, “has faced much local resistance including lawsuits and protests largely because of land taking, disruption of sacred sites and concerns about environmental damage. In Okinawa, Japan, one of the main issues has been abuse of local women by U.S. Marines posted there.”

In a move widely considered to be aimed at countering growing Chinese military and economic influence in the region, the deal also includes an increased presence of U.S. warships and military aircraft – including B52 bombers – to operate from Australian bases.

In announcing the expanded military presence President Obama said “it’s important for [China] to play by the rules of the road. We will send a clear message to them that we think they may need to be on track, in terms of accepting the rules and responsibilities of being a world power.”

Traditionally, the “rules and responsibilities of being a world power” is to act in a way that is subservient to U.S. power, thus the need for Obama to “send a clear message” of militaristic provocation to the Chinese that their growing influence in recent years are American prerogatives.

China responded negatively to the news. “It may not be quite appropriate to intensify and expand military alliances and may not be in the interest of countries within this region,” said Liu Weimin, a Foreign Ministry spokesman.

The expansion of U.S. military presence in Asia-Pacific occurs despite crippling fiscal deficits and impending cuts to the defense budget. The deployment also has no discernible necessity in terms of defending the nation from a military threat, making the imperial and economic aspects of this particularly blatant.

Opposition figures within the Australia government say that the announcement will be made next week during President Obama’s visit to Australia, and that the US will begin deploying Marines to the nation’s Darwin military base.

The “why” of the sudden (but permanent) deployment is unclear, but some media outlets cited unnamed officials saying it had something to do with “heightened concern about China.”

Which is of course the default reason for any and all US military actions in the South Pacific, but makes even less since in this case, since there is no conceivable reason to expect that Australia is about to be overrun by Red Chinese, or that if this were somehow the case the deployment of US Marines would make the US seem more committed to that incredibly improbable war.

Read more on Australia’s introduction to the drone at SMH.

The release of the unredacted cables has caused a number of media outlets, including those that were once pro-WikiLeaks, to angrily condemn the group and Assange in particular, though interestingly enough the official release from WikiLeaks came days after the cables had already gone public.

Indeed, WikiLeaks had been redacting documents and releasing them at a snail’s pace before the release of a book by The Guardian’s David Leigh, who in telling the tale of opening up the cables actually published the password for the encrypted file. WikiLeaks is thus blaming the Guardian for the release.

At any rate, by the time WikiLeaks released the unredacted cables today, they were already available to the public from a myriad of sources, and journalists (and presumably intelligence agencies) around the world were already eagerly rifling through them for information. It seems hard to believe that Assange, in admitting that one cannot unring a bell and releasing the documents straight from WikiLeaks, was doing anything all that revolutionary.

Rudd, who described himself as a “brutal realist on China,” said the US ought to issue an ultimatum to China to implement a European-style “social safety net.” Noting China has lent the US enormous amounts of money she asked “how do you deal toughly with your banker?”

Rudd’s answer is somewhat shocking, as he said the US should get ready to attack China over the issues, saying Australia was focusing on upgrading its navy to combat China regionally. Rudd also provided the embassy with a copy of a 2008 speech arguing that a clash of civilizations between China and the West was inevitable.

Most of the revelations from WikiLeaks have been met with denials and feigned outrage from officials, but Minister Rudd proudly took credit for the comments in the cable, saying it was perfectly in keeping with the Australian national interest to press the US for military aggression against China. He added that he would continue to push this position as Australia’s Foreign Minister.

McClelland insisted that Assange’s leaks were “reprehensible” and that Australia was determined to see that everyone involved, no matter what country they were in, are caught.

Assange is an Australian citizen but has not been in the country since May, when he was harassed by officials at the Melbourne Airport. He has reportedly been in Sweden in recent months, though reports suggest Australian spies have been tracking his movements.

The ability to prosecute Assange for the leaks is unclear, since what he has done was not a crime in Sweden. McClelland insists the moves against Assange should not be about law enforcement, however, but rather should be about ensuring “responsibility” in the reporting on the war.

Assange, whose work with the whistleblower website has often made him a target, was initially told his passport looked a bit worn, at which point it was seized by police. Immigration officials later told him his passport was going to be canceled.

Though his passport has been returned and officials say he is currently allowed to leave the country, police rummaged through his bags and questioned him regarding a 1991 conviction for computer hacking, when he was a teenager.

Australia’s Federal Police have been investigating Assange over the leaking of a list of websites banned in Australia, which was published on Wikileaks, though they later insisted the case had been dropped.

The 15 new suspects added to the number of forged passports used in the hit, adding six more British passports to the list and three more from each Ireland and France. Australia, heretofore unmentioned in the forged passports, also had three.

Which has riled the Australian government, as Prime Minister Kevin Ruud has announced that they have summoned the Israeli Ambassador to explain the incident. Israel has so far denied any role in the killing and refused to assist in the investigation.

But the evidence implicating Israel continues to mount, as at least two more of the fake passports used the names of actual Israeli citizens with dual citizenship. Father of five Philip Carr, who holds passports in Israel, Britain and South Africa, expressed particular shock at learning that one of the apparent assassins had assumed his identity in the killing. At least seven other Israeli citizens besides Carr had their identities stolen.

Senator Joe Lieberman was following reports that he had expressed strong reservations about wars against Muslim nations, and quick to label Major Hasan “an Islamist extremist”called for an investigation of the military for failing to “discipline” him over his beliefs.

Australian MP Fred Nile declared that the incident in America “may warrant a ban on dedicated Muslims joining the armed forces,” insisting their religious convictions might some day override their “loyalty to the Crown.” Ironically Nile, a Protestant reverand, did not appear to have any concern that the religious convictions of Christians might likewise run afoul of calls to obey the national government.

Finally, and only tangentially related because he is using railing against Muslims every chance he gets, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman took the opportunity to send a “formal warning” to every nation in Europe that Muslims in their nations were secretly engaged in a plot to damage their relations with Israel.