World War I started 102 years ago this year. Thought of as the "war to end all wars," it left Europe in shambles as over 9 million people died and large parts of cities throughout the continent were destroyed.
In an effort to commemorate the war, photographer Peter Macdiarmid overlaid images from the war onto modern photographs. The results are stunning and show how much Europe has simultaneously changed and stayed the same.
The US is worried that it's submarine fleet is falling behind China and Russia's as both countries aggressively push to expand and modernize their navies.
Admiral Harry Harris told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday that US Pacific Command “suffers shortage of submarines today, my requirements are not being met."
And, according to Foreign Policy, Harris told the committee that his main concern was that the Pentagon was not managing to keep pace with its rivals in the region.
Harris directly linked this threat to the rising submarine powers of Russia and China.
Russia already has the second most capable submarine fleet in the world after the US, Harris admitted, and he warned that their capabilities were likely to rise in the coming years as the US submarine force falters.
Currently, Foreign Policy notes, the US Navy's shipbuilding plan calls for a fall in the number of attack submarines from 52 to 41 by 2028 before "gradually clawing back to 50 by 2044."
As the number of US submarines is expected to fall, China and Russia are expanding their submarine forces. Russia has expanded a naval base to allow for new ballistic-missile submarines in the Northern Pacific.
At the same time, Moscow has also undertaken a serious push for the expansion and modernization of its submarine fleet — including the introduction of new submarine models in both Europe and Asia.
This expansion of the Russian submarine fleet includes more aggressive submarine posturing throughout the world.
The US had to recently announce plans to reopen a submarine base in Iceland following reports of Russia operating submarines in the North Atlantic at Cold War-era levels.
And while China's submarine fleet is nowhere at the same level of capability of the US or Russia, it too is being rapidly built up. Foreign Policy reports that China has built four new ballistic missile submarines, and is thought to be constructing an unknown number of additional vessels.
This construction boom comes amid the US pivot to the Pacific and China's increasing militarization of the South China Sea. Most recently, China has based missiles on a contentious island that China, Taiwan, and Vietnam all claim.
Amid these ongoing threats, US forces are facing serious strain as they must operate on multiple fronts in both the Pacific and the Atlantic. And as the US submarine force shrinks, and Russia and China's continue to grow, US forces will likely come under greater and greater stress.
SEE ALSO: This amazing graphic shows all of the Russian navy's submarines
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: The US Navy's last line of defense is this ultimate gun
US paratroopers are some of the most daring members of the US military.
After completing United States Army Airborne School, or Jump School, these volunteers are certified to conduct some of the most daring missions in the military.
We have compiled some of our favorite images of US Army paratroopers below.
SEE ALSO: Surreal photos of Marine night operations that look straight out of a video game
SEE ALSO: See if you can spot the armed camouflaged Marine watching you
Turkey has the ability to build a planned long-range missile system domestically, the defense industry undersecretary said on Friday, adding he did not rule out the possibility of working with companies that had previously submitted bids in a tender.
"We could produce the long-range missile system locally. We could also evaluate opportunities for cooperation including those who submitted bids in the tender," Ismail Demir told broadcaster NTV.
Turkey last year canceled the $3.4-billion tender to develop the missile system that had been provisionally awarded to China, after the award stirred the concern of Ankara's NATO allies.
Other bidders in the tender included US firm Raytheon and Franco-Italian group Eurosam, owned by the multinational European missile maker MBDA and France's Thales.
Since first coming into service in 1980, the M1 Abrams tank has become a staple of US ground forces. The 67-ton behemoth has since made a name for itself as an incredibly tough, powerful tool that has successfully transitioned from a Cold War-era blunt instrument to a tactical modern weapon.
In the slides below, find out how the M1 Abrams became, and remains, the king of the battlefield.
SEE ALSO: Ukrainian soldiers made this epic video using a battle-tank turret as a selfie stick
Source: GlobalSecurity.org
The first Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC) was founded in the areas of Fontana and San Bernardino, California in 1948.
From there, the club grew exponentially, becoming one of the largest in the world.
The club has since earned a reputation in media and popular culture, thanks to a number of high-profile raids and wars on its various national charters, and in no small part to Gimme Shelter, a 1970 documentary about a riot during a Rolling Stones concert.
The Stones’ management allegedly paid the Hell’s Angels to provide security at the concert and paid them in beer, which was a terrible idea. As a banner once read on the club’s website, “when we do right, no one remembers; when we do wrong, no one forgets.”
What the motorcycle club never forgets is its own heritage. While mainstream media gave the club a creation myth involving drunken, misfit airmen who flew bomber missions in World War II and struggled to adapt to life after the war, the real story is much simpler.
The fake story starts with a WWII Army Air Forces unit in Europe during WWII, the 303rd Bombardment Group. The 303rd was not a misfit group, as popular lore has implied, but rather one of the highest performers in the entire air war. In its official history, the motorcycle club tells the story of the B-17 the 303rd named “Hell’s Angels,” and its commander, the capable (and not drunken) Capt. Irl E. Baldwin.
Why? To make sure the world knows this aircrew wasn’t a band of drunken misfits, but instead were heroes of the war in Europe. The aircrew has nothing to do with the motorcycle club. The Angels just care that the memory of the crew isn’t dragged through the mud. (They care too much, right? That’s always been a fault of the Hell’s Angels.)
This B-17F, tail number 41-24577, was named Hell’s Angels after the Howard Hughes movie about World War I fighter pilots. The bomber would fly with several commanders and numerous crewmen over 15 months and was the first B-17 to complete 25 combat missions in Eighth Air Force.
The 303rd’s story starts with naming their B-17 “Hell’s Angels” after the 1930 movie by famed aviator Howard Hughes. The plane was the first 8th Air Force B-17 to complete 25 combat sorties in the European Theater. It even participated in one of the first strikes on Berlin 1944. Two of the plane’s crewmen would earn the Medal of Honor. Another four would ear the Distinguished Service Cross. Fifty years later, the entire 303rd would vote to change its name to the Hell’s Angels, with “Might in Flight” as its motto. That name is the only common thread between the bikers and the airmen of the 303rd.
So where did the name Hell’s Angels really come from? The motorcycle club’s official history says it comes from a World War II veteran from the All-Volunteer Group (AVG), better known as “the Flying Tigers.” This Flying Tiger, named Arvid Olson, was a close friend of the founders of the Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club after the war, but never even tried to become a member.
The Flying Tigers were an all-volunteer group of airmen and maintainers in service to the Chinese Air Force who fought the Japanese Imperial Air Forces in China, preparing for combat even before the US entered World War II. The unit’s 3rd Pursuit Squadron, comprised entirely of Marine Corps aviators, called themselves the Hell’s Angels. They first saw combat against Japan days after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Over the life of the unit, the Flying Tigers would down almost 300 Japanese aircraft in combat between December 20, 1941 and July 4, 1942.
The Hell’s Angels Motorcycle Club’s copyrighted “Death’s Head” logo (below, left) can even be traced back to two US Army Air Corps patches, from the 85th Fighter Squadron (center) and the 552nd Medium Bomber Squadron (right).
SEE ALSO: 17 reasons why the M1 Abrams tank is still king of the battlefield
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Ukrainian soldiers turned a tank cannon into the ultimate selfie stick
US Air Force Secretary Deborah James, unveiling the first image of a new Northrop Grumman Corp long-range bomber on Friday, said it would be designated the B-21.
James revealed the first artist's rendering of the secret bomber, an angular flying wing, at the Air Force Association's annual Air Warfare Symposium. She said the name of the new warplane would be chosen with the help of service members.
The program has been shrouded in secrecy since its inception for fear of revealing military secrets to potential enemies, and to avoid giving the losing bidders any details before their formal protest was rejected last week.
Northrop won a contract worth an estimated $80 billion in October to develop and build 100 new bombers, but work on the new plane was delayed for months while federal auditors reviewed a protest by Boeing Co and its key supplier, Lockheed Martin Corp.
Boeing has now told senior US Air Force leaders that it will not take further legal action challenging the contract, Reuters reported Thursday, citing two sources familiar with the decision.
The Air Force, under pressure from lawmakers and retired Air Force officers, has promised to release more information about the new plane in March.
Although the program has now survived the legal protest process, it still faces hurdles in Congress.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain on Thursday said he would block the Air Force's use of a cost-plus type of contract for the long-range bomber since it holds the government responsible for cost overruns.
The Air Force says that only the engineering and development phase of the program, valued at $21.4 billion, is structured as a cost-plus contract with incentive fees.
Production of the first five sets of new bombers, usually the most expensive planes in a new class of aircraft, would be structured with a firm, fixed price, the service said.
Analysts say the program will be worth around $80 billion in total, providing a boon to Northropand its key suppliers, but the Air Force has said only that it expects to pay $511 million per plane in 2010 dollars.
John Michael Loh, a retired four-star US Air Force general, has urged the Air Force to name Northrop's suppliers to shore up support in Congress, and avoid a re-run of the B-2 bomber program, which was scaled back from 132 planes to just 21, which drove the price of each plane sharply higher.
SEE ALSO: Russia's newest fighter jet is 5th-generation 'in name only'
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Scientists have developed a bomb-proof lining for airplanes
US airstrikes and gains on the ground by Syrian rebels and Iraqi Security Forces have made major progress in isolating Islamic State strongholds in Iraq and Syria, the top US civilian and uniformed defense officials said Thursday.
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter pointed to the recent offensive by the mostly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces backed by the US with airstrikes and US Special Forces in advisory roles on the ground to take back the northeastern Syrian town of Shaddadi.
The fall of Shaddadi would "sever the last major northern artery between Raqqa and Mosul," both power centers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Carter said.
Raqqa is the self-proclaimed capital of the "caliphate" in northeastern Syria, and Mosul 200 miles to the east is the largest city controlled by ISIS in Iraq.
"This is just the most recent example of how we're effectively enabling and partnering with local forces to help deal ISIL a lasting defeat," Carter added, using another acronym for ISIS.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford said Syrian Democratic Forces were "going down now to isolate" Raqqa after the success around Shaddadi.
"Four months ago, we did not have momentum" in Iraq and Syria against ISIS, Dunford said. "Today, I can tell you with authority we do have momentum. There's a lot of work left to be done, but the enemy is under great pressure. My assessment is the trajectory is in the right direction," he said.
Dunford and Carter made the remarks in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on President Obama's proposed Fiscal Year 2017 defense budget of $583 billion. Carter said the $583 billion included $7.5 billion to defeat ISIS, which he said was a 50 percent increase over last year.
Republican committee members said the $583 billion was not enough to meet current threats and boost military readiness but did not specify how much more they wanted to spend on defense.
"This administration claims to provide robust funding" for defense, but "we have a shrinking Army and Navy. China is building whole islands in the South China Sea," said Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican and a senior committee member.
"Syria is a living hell on earth and devolving further every day" while "ISIS has a major franchise in Libya. This budget does not do enough to halt its spread," he said.
In his 33-page prepared statement, Carter went into detail on a range of budget matters from cyber warfare and the rebalance to the Pacific, to the buildup in Europe and personnel changes, but much of the hearing was devoted to other issues.
From the start, Frelinghuysen and Rep. Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican and the committee's chairman, sought assurances from Carter that Obama would not use his upcoming trip to Cuba to change the status of the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay or its detention facility.
Frelinghuysen said he had heard "speculation" that something was about to happen on the status of Guantanamo. He asked: "Can you assure us there's no plan for any change of our operations and historic role there?" Carter responded that "I know of no such plans."
The Pentagon has maintained that the status of the naval base was separate from Obama's plan announced earlier this week for the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility, which would require sending some prisoners to the US The plan would need the approval of Congress.
SEE ALSO: These two ISIS battles could change everything in the Middle East
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: The US Navy's last line of defense is this ultimate gun
After many months of political jockeying and an official campaign that passed in the blink of an eye, preparations for Iran’s latest round of elections have concluded, and now all that remains is the vote and its tallying.
The outcome of the ballot for 290 seats in the Iranian parliament and 88 slots on the Assembly of Experts—an arcane government body empowered to select the revolutionary state’s highest authority—will be analyzed and debated both within Iran and around the world.
Ultimately, the scrutiny and suspense surrounding the ballot is somewhat disproportionate to its likely impact. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the stakes in this vote have been overstated by a spate of breathless punditry, fixated on finding some discernible turning point in a system whose opacity and unpredictability has long frustrated its citizens as well as observers.
Iran’s parliament has only limited authority to influence key foreign policy decisions. The Assembly of Experts, for its part, remains relevant only in the hypothetical—having performed its primary function of managing any future succession process for the supreme leader only once (nearly three decades ago), and even then in mostly perfunctory fashion.
And of course, the manipulation of the election procedures and vetting of candidates by an unelected oversight body comprised primarily of elderly clerics constrains any prospects of a wholly unexpected outcome at the ballot box.
As a result, despite the hype, today’s election is unlikely to “make history,” “reshape the balance of power,” or offer “a referendum” on moderate president Hassan Rouhani or the July 2015 nuclear deal that he helped engineer.
That does not imply, however, that today’s vote is irrelevant. Iran’s parliament has roots that stretch back more than a century. Its 1906 founding was the product of a remarkable movement that introduced the basic tenets of democracy to Iran: that government should be based on law and responsible to its citizenry through representative institutions.
Despite its abuse and neglect by the monarchy, the parliament remained a sufficiently powerful symbol of the long struggle to advance popular participation that it survived the 1979 revolution. Since that time, the parliament has provided a forum for day-to-day politics in Iran with battles over budgets, oversight, and authority between each of the bodies and the office of the presidency.
And Iranian elections, despite their manifest limitations, should not be dismissed as mere Potemkin exercises. The regime’s reliance on the ballot box is the saving grace of the Islamic Republic; the routine experience in exercising some form of political voice (at least 33 national ballots in 37 years) has helped to habituate democratic values, create a culture of political competition, and embed expectations for government accountability among Iranians.
The elections themselves offer rare moments for mobilization of millions of Iranians around leaders, parties, and movements in ways that often prove difficult to control, even for a regime that is well-practiced in the art of repression. Elections provide openings for the kind of elite jockeying and public activism that is forcefully discouraged at other points in the political calendar.
Former President Mohammad Khatami—who has been relegated to persona non grata status as a result of his sympathies with the unrest that followed the contested 2009 presidential election—has reemerged in the public consciousness, with campaign posters alluding to his (still-banned) image and social media distribution of his video endorsement of the reformist ticket.
And at rallies for reformist candidates during the short-lived formal campaign, participants displayed posters of opposition leaders Mir Hussain Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who have been held in a draconian house arrest for five years, and shouted slogans associated with the 2009 uprising that they inspired.
Finally, while the ballot won’t fundamentally reshape Iran’s government or its ruling elites, voting has repeatedly signaled and/or amplified ongoing shifts in the balance of power among the theocracy’s fluid factions. Then-president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s1992 attempt to eliminate leftist members of parliament who opposed his post-war economic reforms inadvertently helped spawn the reform movement.
The reformists’ capture of a majority in the 2000 Majlis elections incited a fierce backlash and empowered a new generation of hardliners. Four years later, the ballot for the subsequent parliament heralded the fading relevance of reform and a revival of a more ideological strand within the system.
We don’t know what today’s elections will bring, but as I wrote in advance of the 2013 elections, “while the outcome will be engineered, the element of improvisation is real.”
As the first opportunity to articulate their political views since the July 2015 nuclear deal and the massive sanctions relief that accompanied its formal implementation last month, today’s ballot serves as an important milestone and a key barometer of the ever-evolving political dynamics within the Islamic Republic.
As the results begin to roll in, there are four key indicators that should prove particularly illuminating:
Voter turnout: The number of people who come to the polls today represents perhaps the most consequential factor for all players in this ballot. The Iranian leadership routinely finds itself navigating an uncertain balance in this regard.
The regime has a compelling interest in encouraging participation as a means of validating the legitimacy of the ruling system—“to disappoint our enemies,” as Khamenei said after he cast his own ballot today. At the same time, the stalwarts of the system seek to avoid inciting the kind of unrestrained electoral enthusiasm that inevitably benefits forces of change and has occasionally spiraled beyond the regime’s control.
For partisans across the permissible Iranian political spectrum, the challenge is slightly different. Reformists have historically found advantage in high volumes of voter participation; their apex came in the 2000 Majlis race, with 67 percent turnout, whereas their fortunes crashed four years later when a relatively modest 51 percent of the electorate turned up to vote.
Can the reformists make a comeback? This election has already marked an interesting pivot point for Iran’s reformist camp, which has struggled in a variety of ways since it lost its parliamentary majority 12 years ago. The 2009 protests scattered much of its leadership into prison, exile, or—like Khatami—to the precarious periphery of the Islamic Republic’s “red lines” of acceptability.
While reformist politicians did in fact contest the polls that followed—the 2012 parliamentary and 2013 presidential election—their horizons in both ballots were conspicuously constrained.
This time around, the reform front has sought to make a genuine comeback. They flooded the Guardians’ Council with candidates—more than twice the number in the 2012 elections, and 50 percent more than any prior Iranian poll. After the predictable culling of their aspirants, they crafted a viable alternative strategy by aligning with an array of moderate conservatives to produce common lists of candidates in key districts.
This reflects a reprise of their successful strategy in the 2013 election, when the reformist candidate was persuaded, somewhat grudgingly, to leave the race at the last moment in Rouhani’s favor. That candidate, Mohammad Reza Aref, now tops the joint “List of Hope” for Tehran’s hotly contested 30 seats in the parliament. His vote tally, and that of the other prominent figures on the list, could jettison the reform movement back beyond mere survival to a position of renewed policy-making relevance.
The strategy was privately dubbed “the second step,” in a deliberate allusion to Khatami’s 1997 election as the first step and a hint at the determination of the reform front to reclaim their place in shaping Iran’s future.
A related outcome is the fate of the detained Mousavi and Karroubi. While Rouhani has repeatedly invoked somewhat ambiguous promises to secure their eventual release, even moderates within the Iranian leadership have given little ground on issue of “sedition” in their public posture. However, news that Karroubi, apparently at his own request, had voted in today’s ballot will almost surely reinvigorate the debate about their future.
Succession and the hard-liners. The reformists’ leading lights—mostly notably Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the revolution’s charismatic founder—have largely been excluded from the race for the Assembly of Experts, the body charged with managing any future succession process for the supreme leader.
Still, that gambit has not eliminated the competition around this ballot. Here too, in concert with more moderate conservatives, Iranian reformists have sought to encourage alternative slates to the old guard figures that have long dominated the public image of the Assembly.
If any of those prominent orthodox clerics—particularly Ayatollah Ahmed Jannati, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazd—fail to claim a seat on the Assembly, it will be considered a triumph for those who support gradual change within Iran.
How will the outcome impact the leadership of the parliament? Finally, once the votes have been tallied and a new parliament is seated, the Majlis leadership will be once again up for grabs. Despite the perceptions of institutional contention, it’s hard to imagine a more conducive partner for Rouhani’s agenda than Ali Larijani, who has served as speaker for the past eight years.
Larijani harbors greater political ambitions, and he will no doubt find tough contenders on the left (Aref) as well as on his right (Gholam-Ali Haddad Adel, himself a former speaker and leader of the principalist camp). Even within its limited writ, the parliament plays an important role in the functioning of the government and particularly in the shaping of economic policy, a key priority for Rouhani.
The competition for leadership positions in the new Majlis will help decide the institutional balance between the president, the legislature, and the unelected domain of the Iranian system at a crucial moment.
SEE ALSO: The Saudis are 'drawing lines in the sand' — and showing they are serious about confronting Iran
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: IAN BREMMER: Ukraine's government will fall apart 'by the end of this year'
_human_performance_laboratory_located_at_nswc_dahlgren,_va.jpg)
James Robert Baker, a naturalized US citizen from Tehran, Iran, who worked as a civilian engineer for the US Navy for 30 years has been indicted on charges of lying about his dual Iranian citizenship and creating false identities to conceal money he received from overseas, but experts say he won't face more than 5 years in prison, according to the Navy Times.
Baker, who was born Majid Karimi, naturalized and changed his name in 1985 and began working at the Naval Surface Warfare Center before moving to NAVSEA in 2006.
During this time he received security clearances and had access to classified information.
The federal government indicted Baker on or around February 4, on 14 counts on charges including lying on his SF-86 security clearance questionnaire, committing identification documents fraud, and social security fraud.
According to the indictment, the Navy told Baker a few days after the September 11, 2001 attacks that he could not maintain his security clearance while holding an Iranian Passport, and that he would need to prove that he had given up the passport before his security clearance could be reinstated.
Six days later, Baker flew to Iran. A month later, the Navy learned of Baker's trip to Iran and suspended his clearance. Baker challenged the suspension, saying he had returned the passport to Iran, and had is clearance reinstated in 2002.
However, In July of this year, authorities searched Baker’s home in Springfield, Virginia., and discovered a Maryland driver’s license under the name Majid Karimi, and the key to a safe-deposit box located at a bank in nearby Vienna, Virginia.
When the agents went to search the safe-deposit box in Vienna, Baker reportedly stormed in demanding access to his safe-deposit box, which was refused to him as agents carried out the warrant.
Once opened, agents found three Iranian passports under the name Majid Karimi with Baker's picture on them, including the one he claimed to have given up.
Agents also discovered four social security cards and five drivers licenses under his various aliases with addresses in different states.
The alternate identities are especially intriguing as prosecutors allege that Baker received large amounts of money from overseas accounts, and spread them across his different identities.
The implications of a civilian working in the Navy with a high security clearance are troubling, but the fact that the indictment was public indicates that the prosecution is unlikely to bring espionage charges against Baker.
“It’s probably frustrating for the prosecutor,” Bill Cowden, a former prosecutor who is now a defense attorney with the Federal Practice Group in Washington, D.C. told the Navy times.
“They probably think there’s something more going on here, he’s got money coming in from overseas and probably don’t know what the source of it is and haven’t been able to get as far into it as they’d like. Or they’ve run it to ground and they think he’s a social security and tax fraud,” Cowden continued.
The breach of security profiles caused by Baker's deception echoes similar cases of indiscretion like Hillary Clinton's use of a private server to store her emails during her time as Secretary of State.
“He shouldn’t have a security clearance, no questions about it,” Cowden said of Baker to the Navy Times.
“This is just another example of what’s causing a lot of people to question whose dropping the ball on security clearances. You have leaks of government information, you have people accessing personnel records and you have this. It just doesn’t give you a lot of confidence that the government is doing a good job of vetting people.”
Baker has been suspended from his job at NAVSEA pending the results of the prosecution.
A five month old, 20 some odd pound polar bear cub took the name of Juno, and was named as the new living mascot of the Canadian Army on Thursday, according to CBC News.
The bear, born on November 11, 2015, or Remembrance Day, Canada's version of Memorial day, was named Juno after the hundreds of Canadian soldiers who were killed or wounded during the 1944 allied storming of Juno beach on D-Day.
"We are proud and happy to adopt Juno to the army today, and to promote her immediately to the rank of private," said Brigadier General David Patterson of the bear.
"Polar bears are brave, strong, resilient, tenacious, agile and more than capable of defending themselves, just like our Canadian soldiers," said Patterson.
Juno will live with his mother at the Toronto zoo, and will join her in the exhibit starting on February 27.
Private #Juno reporting for duty with the Canadian Army #StrongProudReady#TOPolarBearCub@TheTorontoZoohttps://t.co/lnU5WEFZsN
— Canadian Army (@CanadianArmy) February 25, 2016
We are proud to adopt Juno the polar bear cub as the official “live” mascot of the Canadian Army. #StrongProudReadypic.twitter.com/brdOeiTkjr
— Canadian Army (@CanadianArmy) February 25, 2016SEE ALSO: The brutal, ridiculous way giraffes fight
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: This is exactly what you should do if a bear attacks you
A selection of photos from some of this week's biggest news that you might have missed.
The United Nations and partner aid organizations plan to deliver life-saving aid to 154,000 Syrians in besieged areas in the next five days, the U.N. Resident Coordinator in Damascus Yacoub El Hillo said in a statement on Sunday.
Pending approval from parties to the conflict, the U.N. is ready to deliver aid to about 1.7 million people in hard-to-reach areas in the first quarter of 2016, he said.
The U.N. estimates there are almost 500,000 people living under siege, out of a total 4.6 million who are hard to reach with aid, but it hopes that a cessation of hostilities that began on Friday night will bring an end to the 15 sieges.
"It is the best opportunity that the Syrian people have had over the last five years for lasting peace and stability," El Hillo said.
"But we all know that without a meaningful political process and a political solution, both cessation of hostilities and entry of humanitarian assistance will not be enough to end the crisis in Syria."
The U.N. hopes to deliver aid to Moadamiya on Monday, the "four towns" of Zabadani, Kufreya, Foua and Madaya on Wednesday, and Kafr Batna on Friday.
But the biggest single siege, of about 200,000 people in Deir al-Zor, is not affected by the cessation of hostilities because the besieging Islamic State forces are excluded from the agreement.
The U.N. attempted an air drop there last week but high winds meant all 21 tonnes of food went off target or went missing or their parachutes failed to open and they were destroyed.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Ashton Kutcher just made a surprise appearance on Ian Bremmer's weekly digital video series
By Sanjeev Miglani and David Brunnstrom
NEW DELHI/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - India and the United States are closing in on an agreement to share military logistics after 12 years of talks, officials said, a sign of strengthening defense ties between the countries as China becomes increasingly assertive.
The United States has emerged as India's top arms source after years of dominance by Russia, and holds more joint exercises with it than any other country.
It is in talks with New Delhi to help build its largest aircraft carrier in the biggest military collaboration to date, a move that will bolster the Indian navy's strength as China expands its reach in the Indian Ocean.
After years of foot-dragging by previous governments over fears that the logistics agreement would draw India into a binding commitment to support the United States in war, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's administration has signaled a desire to move ahead with the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA).
That would allow the two militaries to use each other's land, air and naval bases for resupplies, repair and rest, officials said.
Admiral Harry Harris, head of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command, said the two sides were working on the LSA, another agreement called the CISMOA for secure communications when the militaries operate together, and a third on exchange of topographical, nautical, and aeronautical data.
"We have not gotten to the point of signing them with India, but I think we're close," Harris, due in India this week, told the U.S. House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday.
The progress comes as the countries consider joint maritime patrols that a U.S. official said could include the South China Sea, where China is locked in a territorial dispute with Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan among others.
Both sides, though, said there were no immediate plans for such patrols, which drew strong condemnation from Beijing.
An Indian government official said the main impediment to signing the LSA had been cleared, after Washington gave an assurance that New Delhi was not bound by it if the U.S. went to war with a friendly country or undertook any other unilateral action that New Delhi did not support.
"It has been clarified that it will be done on a case-to-case basis; it's not automatic that either side will get access to facilities in the case of war," the official familiar with the negotiations said.
India's previous center-left government was worried the agreements would undermine India's strategic autonomy and that it would draw it into an undeclared military alliance with the United States.
Concerns linger over the proposed communications agreement, with some branches of the military including the air force fearing it would allow the United States to access their communications network.
U.S. officials said they hoped that once the logistics agreement was signed, the others would follow.
A U.S. defense industry source engaged in business in India said there were expectations the LSA could be sealed by the time U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter visited New Delhi in April.
The source said Modi's office was directly involved in the matter and actively considering the agreements as a key for enhanced cooperation.
India has been alarmed by Chinese naval forays into the Indian Ocean and its involvement in maritime infrastructure on island nations that it traditionally considered its back yard.
It has moved to shore up naval forces and build defense ties with Japan and Vietnam, besides the United States.
"There is growing convergence between Obama's Asia pivot and Modi's Act East policy," said Saroj Bishoyi, an expert on the proposed India-U.S. collaboration at the government-funded Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.
"The LSA currently appears to be a doable agreement."
SEE ALSO: China may be installing advanced radars on disputed South China Sea outposts
Lebanon is inching closer toward becoming a failing state. Services are mediocre, the infrastructure crumbling, garbage piling up and the economy contracting. Now Beirut has added yet another failure to its list: Amateurish diplomacy that is turning whoever is left of Lebanon's friends into enemies. Lebanon’s deteriorating relationship with Saudi Arabia is a case in point.
But before we understand the reasons behind Beirut’s crumbling relations with Riyadh, a quick history is in order.
During the civil war, the Lebanese state managed to maintain some neutrality and decency. In the thick of war, Beirut deployed skilled Foreign Ministers like Fouad Boutros and savvy diplomats like Ghassan Tueni.
But when the war ended in 1991, warlords and their militias took over the state and infested its bureaucracy. Suddenly, the nation’s foreign ministry turned from the voice of a weak, yet credible, government into one of the spoils rewarded to Lebanon’s new and incompetent leaders.
During the 1990s, late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri — a leader with unparalleled skills — covered up for the failure of Lebanese diplomacy. During all-out wars with Israel, like in 1996, Hariri shuttled between foreign capitals and invaded international broadcasts making the case for Lebanon.
At the Arab Summit in Beirut in 2002, when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instructed his Lebanese counterpart Emile Lahoud to censor late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat’s live video address from his siege in Ramallah, it was Hariri who roamed the corridors at Phoenicia Hotel and brought back the Palestinian delegation, thus saving face for Beirut and its summit.
But after Hariri, the inadequacy of Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry became evident, especially after the takeover by Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, an engineer by training. Those who think career diplomats can make up for Bassil’s inexperience, keep in mind that — like in the rest of the Lebanese bureaucracy — sectarian quota and appointment by political intercession trumps qualification.
Bassil’s shortcomings at Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry — like in his role at the Ministery of Electricity — have been evident for a long time. Bassil abused state resources by treating himself to a summer trip to Brazil to watch the 2014 World Cup games, justifying his trip by saying that its goal was to connect with the Lebanese Diaspora (even though emigrants usually visit Lebanon in the summer).
The Lebanese also watched another one of Bassil’s scandals, on video, when he looked as if he was offering the sexual services of one of Lebanon’s senior female diplomats in New York to the Foreign Minister of the UAE.
Bassil’s blunders at the Foreign Ministry and his amateurism eventually caught up with him at the Arab League’s meeting that was convened, in January, to condemn Iranian attacks on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and its consulate in Meshhad.
Had Bassil had the slightest of diplomatic wit, he would have noticed that Iran’s three most ardent Arab allies — Iraq, Oman and Algeria — voted for the resolution. Algeria, which noted its reservation on commending the Saudi severing of ties with Iran, still voted for the resolution. Bassil did not.
Even Iranian President Hassan Rouhani denounced the attacks and said that his government had opened an investigation to punish the perpetrators.
So here you have it: Lebanon’s talentless Foreign Minister Bassil, who won his position thanks to his familial connections, has taken down the last shred of respectability that the Lebanese state once enjoyed.
Perhaps Bassil thought that Arab League meeting was one of Lebanon’s irrelevant cabinet meetings. Perhaps he thought he could erase his mistake by having his and Hezbollah’s media tweaking the story, just like they did with the UN Tribunal, among other false propaganda stunts.
Unfortunately, the only thing worse than Bassil’s blunder at the Arab League was the Lebanese failure to understand the mistake and rectify it.
Lebanon’s enemies of Saudi Arabia started questioning its angry position. Lebanon’s friends of Saudi Arabia launched a campaign against Iran and Hezbollah.
A better response might be to review the bylaws of the Arab League and see whether Beirut can recast Lebanon’s vote. Symbolic as it may be, recasting the vote might tell Riyadh that Beirut understands that Lebanese-Saudi relations cannot be run by amateurs like Bassil, for if Saudi Arabia believes that the Lebanese government is in the image of Bassil, the kingdom will certainly continue distancing itself away from Lebanon, for the first time since the inception of both countries.
Recasting Lebanon’s vote at the Arab League might help rekindle the crumbling Lebanese-Saudi friendship, which if it ever collapses, will cost the Lebanese dearly.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain is the Washington Bureau Chief of Kuwaiti newspaper Alrai. He tweet @hahussain.
SEE ALSO: Iranian reformists set to win all Tehran parliamentary seats
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: IAN BREMMER: Ukraine's government will fall apart 'by the end of this year'
As still the world’s sole superpower, the United States possesses an unequaled array of instruments to support its foreign and defense strategies.
With so much attention being focused on the conflicts in the Middle East, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and Chinese efforts to assert its hegemony in the Western Pacific, the fact that the United States employs a wide range of non-military, or at least non-kinetic tools in pursuing its national interests is lost.
Most recently, for example, the United States and China agreed on the imposition of new trade sanctions on North Korea in response to that country’s test of a long-range ballistic missile.
One of the most important of these tools is foreign military sales (FMS). The complex role of FMS is reflected, in part, in the fact that the program is run by the Department of State and not the Department of Defense.
One reason for this unusual management approach is that the FMS program involves sales by the US government of US arms, defense equipment, defense services, and military training to foreign governments.
As a result, such sales reflect the views of the US government with respect to the recipient country, its relationships with others in the region and the overall approach this country takes to mitigating the threat of regional or global conflict.
The FMS program serves many other purposes. The sales of US arms and related items to foreign countries helps reduce the cost of those systems to our own military. FMS sales help to ensure the ability of US allies to defend themselves and support the maintenance of stable regional military balances.
Equally important, FMS sales over time establish enduring relationships between foreign governments and their militaries and the US When the US military trains alongside those of allies equipped with the same hardware, it helps to cement the bonds between our countries.
Moreover, it improves communications and understanding among these militaries, often helping to inculcate US values related to the use of military force. Foreign militaries dependent on access to US hardware, spare parts, software upgrades and training are more likely to listen to this country when there is a dispute regarding regional politics or defense issues.
FMS has been particularly important as an instrument for influencing foreign governments and shaping regional balances of power in the Middle East. Following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the United States completely reequipped the Egyptian military.
The Egyptian-Israeli border has been remarkably stable ever since. Sales of military aircraft, missile defense systems and precision munitions to the nations of the Persian Gulf have been instrumental in ensuring a stable balance of forces in that area.
Pakistan has been a recipient of US arms. FMS sales have been extremely important to US efforts to ensure Pakistan’s reliability as an ally in the war on terror. Congress has appropriated about $3.6 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Pakistan since 2001. The kind of equipment provided ranges from radios, transport aircraft and unmanned systems to F-16 fighters.
Recently, the State Department approved the sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan. Pakistan intends to use these aircraft in its fight against domestic terrorists. The US and other regional allies have found the F-16 to be an effective platform for conducting precision strikes against terrorist targets. In addition, India is pursuing a major Air Force modernization program. The sale of F-16s to Pakistan would help to maintain the balance of power in the subcontinent.
Unfortunately, Senator Rand Paul has filed a Joint Resolution of Disapproval for this sale, something that hasn’t happened since the 1980s. The effort to block this sale is a mistake. It will serve only to weaken the relationship between our two countries even as the fight against the Taliban continues and intensifies in Afghanistan.
In addition, it leaves the way open for Pakistan to acquire aircraft from other suppliers, such as China or Russia. The only practical effect that disapproval of this sale will have is to weaken Washington’s hand at a time when it needs all the policy instruments it can muster.
SEE ALSO: Watch the US-led coalition's precision airstrikes shred ISIS positions in Syria
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: The US military is legally obligated to refuse Trump’s proposed military action
Despite bombings and financial sanctions the Islamic State is still coming up with ways to bring in cash. The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times just documented IS’s deals with Iraqi money exchangers and Syrian oil traders to keep money flowing into the caliphate.
It’s yet to be seen whether that’s enough to sustain itself, but it shows that it will still take a lot more to cut off the group’s sources of funding.
Erika Solomon from the Financial Times reported on how the Islamic State is offering bulk oil deals in an attempt to avoid coalition air strikes. IS is issuing 1,000 barrel petroleum licenses to oil traders in Syria. A Syrian trucker said that three businesses had been given these offerings that involve the al-Omar field.
This was in direct response to coalition air strikes that have been hitting tanker trucks at oil fields and IS’s storage facilities. By making these large deals IS can be assured of sales and arrange times and places for deliveries to avoid a large number of trucks cuing up at the Omar field, which might invite an air strike.
It also keeps their oil flowing to local markets in Syria and Iraq, which the group has come to rely upon. For the traders they can buy a large quantity of oil from IS instead of waiting for small purchases with everyone else.
The Wall Street Journal added another piece on money exchangers who continue to operate in IS controlled territory. These businesses play a crucial role in sustaining the caliphate as they deliver cash. At the center of this network is allegedly Abu Omar, a Mosul based businessman who also operates in Irbil, Sulaymaniya and Hit. After Mosul was taken in June 2014 he agreed to handle the organization’s money affairs.
He and other exchanges reportedly bring in cash into the caliphate through three main routes. One is from Istanbul through Kurdistan to Mosul. Another is from Amman to Anbar and Baghdad, and the third is from Turkey’s Gaziantep to Raqqa, Syria. Allegedly Peshmerga and Hashd accept bribes to allow these businesses to delivery cash into IS areas. At the end of 2014, the U.S. warned the Central Bank of Iraq about these companies and how they were buying U.S. dollars at the Bank’s auctions to support IS.
The Central Bank responded by handing out fines to banks and then banned 142 money exchangers in December 2014 from the auctions. The problem was that Iraq has no real regulators so all these businesses had to do was set up a front company and they could get right back into buying dollars. Baghdad cannot crackdown on the money exchanges or auctions for two main reasons.
First, many of Iraq’s traders rely upon exchanges rather than banks to provide cash for their transactions, so they can’t be shut down without crippling the economy. Second, Iran, Syria, Iraqi organized crime rings, and the nation’s ruling parties are all involved in buying dollars from the Central Bank to either gain access to hard currency or to sell on the open market for a profit.
That is a powerful group of actors, which banking officials do not want to confront. That means there will be no real reform of the auctions or effective measures taken against the exchanges to limit the Islamic State’s access to dollars and cash.
One of the defining features of the Islamic State is its resilience. Faced with powerful enemies the group is still working on counter moves. It is attempting to create new oil contracts to deal with air strikes. It has also continued to bring in cash through money exchangers, which keeps its economy going.
Western reports have IS struggling. It has allegedly cut the salaries of its fighters, imposed fuel rationing, and is facing rising prices. As one of its key phrases says however, the group is enduring these setbacks and attempting to find ways to overcome them. They highlight the fact that the caliphate is being hurt, but there is still a long way to go before it is defeated.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: IAN BREMMER: Ukraine's government will fall apart 'by the end of this year'
In a video posted to YouTube Friday, Syrian rebels appear to have filmed themselves firing for the first time a US-made TOW anti-tank missile at a Russian T-90 tank.
According to the video's caption, the TOW strike occurred in the Syrian town of Sheikh Aqil, a suburb just northwest of Aleppo.
The BGM-71 TOW is an aging wire-guided anti-tank missile system that the United States has been supplying to CIA-vetted Syrian rebels.
Since their first appearance in 2014, the missiles have popped up throughout the war-torn country, often in videos showing rebels attacking Syrian troops and government-backed militias.
Friday's video is significant because there is very little footage, if any, of a US TOW going up against one of Russia's most modern battle tanks. In this case, it is unclear if the T-90 in the video was crewed by Russian or Syrian troops.
When Russia first began pumping equipment and personnel into northern Syria in September 2015, there were confirmed reports of the T-90s at Russia's airfield in Latakia, though they were likely only there to defend the airfield.
Russia has supplied various other types of tanks to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's military. However, the arrival of the T-90s in September was the first shipment of its kind in the almost five year-old war.
#Russian T-90 A in #Aleppo, first Russian ground operations have just began 💪💪 pic.twitter.com/TfDSj0wFeq
— SAA Reporter (@Syria_Protector) November 23, 2015
Video shows a T-90 getting hit by a TOW #missile in #Syria. Hit seems to glance turret roof https://t.co/GyljO6Jijmpic.twitter.com/upnc1qmVRD
— Nick de Larrinaga (@NickJDWEurope) February 26, 2016SEE ALSO: US Naval engineer with access to US secrets indicted over Iranian passports and false identities
America's aircraft carriers are the heart of the US Navy and serve as American territory floating around the world, allowing the US to project massive air and sea military might.
During flight operations, an aircraft carrier's deck is an extremely dangerous place with expensive fighter jets and helicopters landing and taking off on a short runway. However, sailors and airmen mitigate risks by fine tuning the chaos with coordination and precision.
Here are 27 pictures to prove there is really nothing quite like America's aircraft carriers.
SEE ALSO: 41 pictures that show why a US aircraft carrier is such a dominant force
The men of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment spearheaded one of the American columns that invaded Iraq on Feb. 23, 1991.
After three days of light fighting they stumbled into one of the largest Iraqi armored formations and annihilated it with cannons, TOW missiles and mortars in the Battle of 73 Easting, often called “the last great tank battle of the 20th century.”
Then-Capt. (now Lt. Gen.) H.R. McMaster, commander of Eagle Troop, 2nd Squadron, 2nd ACR, literally wrote the book on the battle and commanded one of the lead elements in the fight.
Helicopters buzzed over Eagle Troop as the ground invasion of Iraq began on Feb. 23. The mission of the 2nd ACR was simple in theory but would be challenging to achieve. They were to cut off Iraqi retreat routes out of Kuwait and destroy the large armored formations thought to be hiding in the flat, featureless desert.
The empty desert could be challenging to navigate since there were no features to use for direction. Heavy rains and windstorms limited visibility as the tanks and other vehicles felt their way through the desert.
Fox troop made contact first, destroying a few enemy tanks. Over the next couple of days, 2nd Squadron tanks and vehicles would encounter enemy observation and scout vehicles and destroy them with missiles and cannons, but they couldn’t find the Iraqi Republican Guard divisions they knew were dug somewhere into the desert.
In the afternoon of Feb. 26, 1991, McMaster was pushing his troop through a sandstorm when he crested a rise and there, directly in front of him, was an entire division of Iraqi tanks with elite crews. Finding himself already in range of the enemy, he immediately gave the order to fire.
The enemy had parked themselves away from the slight rise so that they would be hidden and so incoming American tanks would be forced to drive down the hill towards them. This exposed the relatively weak top armor of the tank to the Iraqi guns.
But the Iraqis had lost most of their scout vehicles and so were just as surprised as the US commanders when the two armored forces clashed, leaving them unable to capitalize on their position.
McMaster’s opening salvo set the tone for the battle. His first shot was a HEAT round that destroyed a tank cowering behind a berm. His second shot, a depleted uranium sabot shell, shot through an Iraqi tank that was swiveling to fire on him. As his crew targeted a third enemy, the driver realized they were driving through a minefield and began taking evasive action.
Enemy rounds began falling around the lead tank as the two tank platoons in Eagle Troop got on line to join the fight. Nine American tanks were now bearing down on the Iraqi positions, destroying enemy T-72s and armored vehicles. As McMaster described it in his first summary of the battle:
The few seconds of surprise was all we had needed. Enemy tanks and BMP’s (Soviet-made armored personnel carriers) erupted in innumerable fire balls. The Troop was cutting a five kilometer wide swath of destruction through the enemy’s defense.
The Bradley fighting vehicles joined the tanks, firing TOW missiles at the enemy armor and using their guns to cut down Iraqi infantry. Mortar and artillery support opened up, raining fire onto the remaining Iraqi positions.
The American forces cut down 30 tanks, 14 armored vehicles, and hundreds of infantrymen before reaching their limit of advance, the line they were originally told to halt at. But McMaster ordered the troop to continue attacking, fearful that the Iraqis would be able to regroup and wage a strong counterattack.
At 23 minutes since first contact, McMaster declared it safe to halt his troop’s advance. The single armored troop had crippled the Iraqi flank with zero casualties. One American tank from the 2nd Squadron headquarters had received light damage from a mine.
Near the Eagle Troop position, Ghost, Killer, and Iron troops were mixing it up other Iraqi units and trying to catch up to Eagle. The enemy made a few half-hearted attempts at counter-attacking the US tanks, but they were quickly rebuffed.
That night, the US called on the Iraqi’s to surrender and it was answered by droves of troops. About 250 survivors surrendered to Eagle Troop.
Up and down the US lines, the story was similar to that of Eagle Troop. The Iraqis suffered nearly 1,000 casualties, 85 tanks destroyed, 40 armored vehicles destroyed, 30 wheeled-vehicles lost, and two artillery batteries annihilated. The US suffered 12 men killed, 57 men wounded, and 32 vehicles destroyed or damaged.
SEE ALSO: 17 reasons why the M1 Abrams tank is still king of the battlefield
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: Ukrainian soldiers turned a tank cannon into the ultimate selfie stick
