Thankyou Kathleen for your alert!
So far in Australia we have heard the Foreign Policy reasons why we should be alarmed at the announcement of a US base in Australia. What we havn't yet discussed is the social including the abuse of women,envionmental,legal and economic issues that will arise. This is in addition to the agreement signalling an arms race in the Pacific, which is so contraindicated that to instigate this is sheer stupidity. Does not reflect well on Julia Gillard and her government.

before you start your scare mongering I suggest you take a look at the area they the troops will occupy and note its not all beer and skittles. A trip to Arlington cemetery my be good for you and see the resting places of men and women that died to give you the right and choice to spread you venom. Australian speak as they find they dont need to be forwarned by a feminist uni crank.

The author states, in her fifth paragraph, that:

"... in their training, US soldiers and Marines
[are] trained to believe they are superior to
ordinary (American) civilians."

She later goes on to ask, rhetorically:

"... if US Marines understand that they are superior
to American civilians, what do you expect of them
while they are in Australia[?] Acting from the
understanding that they are above state and international
law, do not expect them to respect your laws ... "

She goes on a little later to make a connection between the ostensible reason for US Marines' presence on Australian soil, that of military training and joint exercises, and the effect that she considers that will have upon Australian soldiers' attitudes, 'going forward', saying:

"That will be the result of US military
training of your own Australian soldiers."

In so saying she has revealed ignorance as to the direction in which, at that level of co-operation, training with Australian army personnel would normally be expected to go, but in the process maybe given the lie to the whole proposal. I suggest that the Marines' presence may in reality be intendedly covertly pre-emptive in protection of US assets long-present on Australian soil, with the prospect, in extremis, not of training with, but of potentially having to fight Australian forces asserting Australian sovereignty over Australian soil at some perhaps not too distant future date.

What could precipitate such an unimaginable scenario? Australia has long and openly been both friend and ally to the US, and the provision of facilities supportive of US forces is neither new nor particularly unpopular. It nevertheless should not be forgotten that in June 2010 there occurred a 'palace coup' in which an Australian PM was toppled without a word of it leaking out before the event, and with the seemingly unanimous acceptance of erstwhile parliamentary colleagues.

Australia is very leery about that.

What if it came to be revealed that interests seemingly connected with US interests, governmental or quasi-governmental, may have had a hand deep inside Australian ballot boxes, perhaps for decades? Can you imagine the Australian fury?

Such drama, Ms Barry. But to what end?

As a senior professor at Penn State, you are obviously part of the "rebuild our image" exercise that is under way following the Sandusky/Paterno affair. But is this the right way to go about it?

You seem to base your fearmongering on two pillars.

First is that "the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are war crimes". With that as a starting point, there is only one way the argument can go. Australia is harbouring vicious criminals on its shores, and "has put the people of Australia, especially women in northern Australia, in grave danger."

So, the contingent of 2,500 souls sequestered in the Top End (lucky them...!) pose "grave danger". Such hyperbole. With their "ruthless disregard for human life", they must be very, very vicious indeed.

(Incidentally, I'm not really sure that you meant to say that the US government "flaunted all international humanitarian law". If you did, the imagery was far too subtle for me.)

The second foundation of your argument is that men are animals, and military personnel doubly - triply? - so. Fair enough. But if you take that argument to its most logical conclusion, your country would be without an armed force. Is that really wise? I mean, seriously, it is a heady utopian ideal that we could live in a world where we did not require physical protection, but is it... realistic?

A bit like your thesis on the de-masculinization of men, that the blurb for your book describes as "the urgent problem of how might men remake themselves by unmaking masculinity".

Yum.

All of which, I am sure, sells shedloads of books. Mainly, I would conjecture, to women who like to feel that they are oppressed, and guys who... well, possibly like your Mr Sandusky, want to be more caring and sharing with their own sex.

But is not your voice on this topic maybe just a little too, um, strident? Could you not perhaps have put together an advertorial for your latest book with just a little less hysterical scaremongering?

Kathleen, don't worry love, Darwin is a pretty tough place, somewhat different to the halls of academia in Pen State.

We tamed tens of thousands of your "boys", well the few who needed it anyway, when we had them here in profusion during that bit of nastiness with Japan, & believe me, we'll have no trouble doing it again if necessary.

So why don't you toddle off & do your own bit of nastiness at home, we'll look after Oz for the moment, thanks.

As bad as American soldiers can be, I prefer them over Chinese soldiers - how much more so given that China has a significant excess of young men over young women.