Taliban fighters have captured a district centre in Afghanistan&#39;s western province of Farah bordering Iran, where they have battled government security forces fiercely in recent months, officials said on Monday.

Naser Mehri, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said a large group of fighters had captured the centre of Anar Dara district on Sunday night after hours of fighting, though police and intelligence service forces were still holding out in their headquarters.

The Taliban released pictures that appeared to show fighters in the town, where skirmishes were taking place on Monday. Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi said 15 policemen had been killed and several military vehicles seized, along with a large quantity of ammunition.

The announcement came days after local officials said the Taliban had inflicted heavy losses on Afghan special forces in another district of Farah, a poor and isolated region where the government has long struggled to impose control.&nbsp;

The pressure on Farah has grown as US air strikes and Afghan army operations have inflicted heavy casualties on Taliban fighters in neighbouring Helmand province, the main opium region in Afghanistan and a heartland of the insurgency.

Afghan and US commanders have been relatively upbeat about the course of the war since US President Donald Trump announced a new and more robust military strategy last year, with more air strikes and greater support for Afghan forces.

But the fighting in Farah underlines the continuing strength of the movement, which controls or contests almost half the country and has so far rejected peace overtures from Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

In January, the Farah provincial governor resigned, blaming political interference and corruption. Residents of Farah city have complained bitterly about security in the province, where some police units are alleged to collude with Taliban fighters, selling them weapons and ammunition.&nbsp;

Although they have failed so far to take any major provincial cities, the insurgents have several times seized district centres, even if they have often been driven off soon after by government reinforcements.

With the approach of milder spring weather, security officials have said they expect to see fighting surge across the country as the Taliban, fighting to drive out international forces and reimpose their version of strict Islamic law, step up the pressure.&nbsp;

The US military`s latest estimates from December show the Afghan government controls or has influenced over 56 per cent of districts, with insurgents controlling or contesting the rest.

The Taliban released pictures that appeared to show fighters in the town

Taliban fighters have captured a district centre in Afghanistan's western province of Farah bordering Iran, where they have battled government security forces fiercely in recent months, officials said on Monday. Naser Mehri, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said a large group of fighters had captured the centre of Anar Dara district on Sunday night after hours of fighting, though police and intelligence service forces were still holding out in their headquarters. The Taliban released pictures that appeared to show fighters in the town, where skirmishes were taking place on Monday. Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi said 15 policemen had been killed and several military vehicles seized, along with a large quantity of ammunition. The announcement came days after local officials said the Taliban had inflicted heavy losses on Afghan special forces in another district of Farah, a poor and isolated region where the government has long struggled to impose control. The pressure on Farah has grown as US air strikes and Afghan army operations have inflicted heavy casualties on Taliban fighters in neighbouring Helmand province, the main opium region in Afghanistan and a heartland of the insurgency. Afghan and US commanders have been relatively upbeat about the course of the war since US President Donald Trump announced a new and more robust military strategy last year, with more air strikes and greater support for Afghan forces. But the fighting in Farah underlines the continuing strength of the movement, which controls or contests almost half the country and has so far rejected peace overtures from Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. In January, the Farah provincial governor resigned, blaming political interference and corruption. Residents of Farah city have complained bitterly about security in the province, where some police units are alleged to collude with Taliban fighters, selling them weapons and ammunition. Although they have failed so far to take any major provincial cities, the insurgents have several times seized district centres, even if they have often been driven off soon after by government reinforcements. With the approach of milder spring weather, security officials have said they expect to see fighting surge across the country as the Taliban, fighting to drive out international forces and reimpose their version of strict Islamic law, step up the pressure. The US military`s latest estimates from December show the Afghan government controls or has influenced over 56 per cent of districts, with insurgents controlling or contesting the rest.

Taliban capture district centre in western Afghan province

President Donald Trump said on Thursday the US&nbsp;government &quot;could very well&quot; shut down and that would be very harmful to the military.

&quot;If the country shuts down, which could very well be, the budget should be handled a lot different than it has been handled for the last long period of time,&quot; Trump said in answer to reporters` questions as he arrived for a visit at the Pentagon. &quot;If for any reason it shuts down, the worst thing is what happens to our military.&quot;

'If the country shuts down, which could very well be, the budget should be handled a lot differently than it has been for the last long period of time,' Trump said

President Donald Trump said on Thursday the US government "could very well" shut down and that would be very harmful to the military. "If the country shuts down, which could very well be, the budget should be handled a lot different than it has been handled for the last long period of time," Trump said in answer to reporters` questions as he arrived for a visit at the Pentagon. "If for any reason it shuts down, the worst thing is what happens to our military."

Trump says US government 'could very well' shut down

Undeniably, the world will face paralysis if we were to do away with GPS. The Global Positioning System is an intricate web of signals that are beamed off satellites positioned in space.

While most of us would not like to fancy a scenario devoid of internet and GPS, United States seem to have started putting the mind in the reverse direction -- what to do if GPS fails?

Reportedly, America&nbsp;has begun bracing-up for a situation where its space-based technology is disrupted or damaged.

While it is extremely cumbersome and expensive for countries to innovate and develop orbital platforms, jamming or destroying military satellites of an enemy country would be way too simpler and easier. Low-cost jammers, strategically stationed, can wreak havoc with incoming GPS signals.

&quot;When you start taking away those combat multipliers, we need to go back then to the days of the industrial-age army where you have to have three times as many people as the adversary does,&quot; said Colonel Richard Zellmann, commander of the 1st Space Brigade based in Colorado.

According to a latest AFP report, about 70 per cent of US Army&#39;s &#39;major combat systems&#39; depends on GPS signals.

While countries like Russia and China are busy bolstering their satellites competence, America has also developed satellites capable of inspecting or monitoring other space objects.

America plans ahead

The US now thinks of going the old-school way, training their soldiers to read paper maps, and teaching their sailors how to navigate by the stars.

The older, analogue technologies are being technologically overhauled by new science, &quot;designed to replicate satellites, only from Earth,&quot; noted the report.&nbsp;

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, US (DARPA) is now all set to develop next-gen navigation and timing tools for the Pentagon that are better-off GPS. 
&nbsp; 
But space, once an uncontested territory, is also becoming congested and crowded by the day, all thanks to technological advancements. Keeping the same in mind, United States has started investing in a new generation of satellites equipped with better accuracy and anti-jamming capabilities.

President Donald Trump on Monday communicated his first National Security Strategy and talked about America&#39;s space infrastructure and US military&#39;s dependence on it.

(With inputs from AFP)

According to a latest AFP report, about 70 per cent of US Army's 'major combat systems' depend on GPS signals

Undeniably, the world will face paralysis if we were to do away with GPS. The Global Positioning System is an intricate web of signals that are beamed off satellites positioned in space. While most of us would not like to fancy a scenario devoid of internet and GPS, United States seem to have started putting the mind in the reverse direction -- what to do if GPS fails? Reportedly, America has begun bracing-up for a situation where its space-based technology is disrupted or damaged. While it is extremely cumbersome and expensive for countries to innovate and develop orbital platforms, jamming or destroying military satellites of an enemy country would be way too simpler and easier. Low-cost jammers, strategically stationed, can wreak havoc with incoming GPS signals. "When you start taking away those combat multipliers, we need to go back then to the days of the industrial-age army where you have to have three times as many people as the adversary does," said Colonel Richard Zellmann, commander of the 1st Space Brigade based in Colorado. According to a latest AFP report, about 70 per cent of US Army's 'major combat systems' depends on GPS signals. While countries like Russia and China are busy bolstering their satellites competence, America has also developed satellites capable of inspecting or monitoring other space objects. America plans ahead The US now thinks of going the old-school way, training their soldiers to read paper maps, and teaching their sailors how to navigate by the stars. The older, analogue technologies are being technologically overhauled by new science, "designed to replicate satellites, only from Earth," noted the report. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, US (DARPA) is now all set to develop next-gen navigation and timing tools for the Pentagon that are better-off GPS. But space, once an uncontested territory, is also becoming congested and crowded by the day, all thanks to technological advancements. Keeping the same in mind, United States has started investing in a new generation of satellites equipped with better accuracy and anti-jamming capabilities. President Donald Trump on Monday communicated his first National Security Strategy and talked about America's space infrastructure and US military's dependence on it. (With inputs from AFP)

GPS failure will paralyse the world, US plans ahead

The US&nbsp;military said it killed more than&nbsp;100&nbsp;Islamist&nbsp;militants&nbsp;in Somalia&nbsp;on Tuesday when it launched an&nbsp;air&nbsp;strike&nbsp;against al Shabaab, an al Qaeda-linked insurgent group that wants to topple the UN-backed government.

The military&#39;s Africa Command said the&nbsp;strike&nbsp;was carried out on a camp 125 miles (201 km) northwest of the capital, Mogadishu and that the United States would continue to target&nbsp;militants.

The&nbsp;strike&nbsp;was done in coordination with&nbsp;Somalia&#39;s federal government, the Pentagon said.

US&nbsp;air&nbsp;strikes killing such a large number of&nbsp;militants&nbsp;in&nbsp;Somalia&nbsp;are rare, but not unprecedented. In March 2016, a US&nbsp;air strike&nbsp;killed more than 150 al Shabaab fighters in&nbsp;Somalia.

Somalia&#39;s state news agency SONNA reported late on Tuesday that &quot;about&nbsp;100&nbsp;militants&quot; were killed when US&nbsp;planes and Somali commandos attacked al Shabaab bases in the Bur Elay area of Bay region.

Al Shabaab spokesman Abdiasis Abu Musab denied the attack. &quot;It is just... propaganda,&quot; he told Reuters in&nbsp;Somalia.

Al Shabaab is fighting to topple&nbsp;Somalia&rsquo;s Western-backed transitional federal government and impose its own rule on the Horn of Africa country.

Earlier this month, the US&nbsp;warned of a threat to its diplomatic staff in Mogadishu and directed all non-essential staff to leave the capital.

Al Shabaab has lost control of most of&nbsp;Somalia&rsquo;s cities and towns since it was pushed out of Mogadishu in 2011. But it retains a strong presence in parts of the south and center and carries out gun and bomb attacks.

&quot;Al-Shabaab has publicly committed to planning and conducting attacks against the US&nbsp;and our partners in the region,&quot; the US&nbsp;military statement said.

Al Shabaab aims to topple&nbsp;Somalia&#39;s government, drive out African Union peacekeeping troops and impose its own harsh interpretation of Islamic law.

Earlier this month, the US&nbsp;military also carried out its first&nbsp;strikes against Islamic State&nbsp;militants in&nbsp;Somalia&nbsp;and said it killed &quot;several terrorists.&quot;

The military's Africa Command said the?strike?was carried out on a camp 125 miles (201 km) northwest of the capital, Mogadishu and that the United States would continue to target?militants

The US military said it killed more than 100 Islamist militants in Somalia on Tuesday when it launched an air strike against al Shabaab, an al Qaeda-linked insurgent group that wants to topple the UN-backed government. The military's Africa Command said the strike was carried out on a camp 125 miles (201 km) northwest of the capital, Mogadishu and that the United States would continue to target militants. The strike was done in coordination with Somalia's federal government, the Pentagon said. US air strikes killing such a large number of militants in Somalia are rare, but not unprecedented. In March 2016, a US air strike killed more than 150 al Shabaab fighters in Somalia. Somalia's state news agency SONNA reported late on Tuesday that "about 100 militants" were killed when US planes and Somali commandos attacked al Shabaab bases in the Bur Elay area of Bay region. Al Shabaab spokesman Abdiasis Abu Musab denied the attack. "It is just... propaganda," he told Reuters in Somalia. Al Shabaab is fighting to topple Somalia’s Western-backed transitional federal government and impose its own rule on the Horn of Africa country. Earlier this month, the US warned of a threat to its diplomatic staff in Mogadishu and directed all non-essential staff to leave the capital. Al Shabaab has lost control of most of Somalia’s cities and towns since it was pushed out of Mogadishu in 2011. But it retains a strong presence in parts of the south and center and carries out gun and bomb attacks. "Al-Shabaab has publicly committed to planning and conducting attacks against the US and our partners in the region," the US military statement said. Al Shabaab aims to topple Somalia's government, drive out African Union peacekeeping troops and impose its own harsh interpretation of Islamic law. Earlier this month, the US military also carried out its first strikes against Islamic State militants in Somalia and said it killed "several terrorists."

US says air strike kills over 100 militants in Somalia

As news broke that Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy, had died aged 91, many instantly pointed out to the complicated legacy of both the magazine and the man behind it. Widely portrayed as one with a bevy of young lovers and infamous parties at the Playboy mansion, it would be easy to dismiss Hefner as merely an enduring barrier to the fight for gender equality. Yet to do so would to overlook the significant cultural impact of both Hefner and Playboy, particularly during the 1950s under the shroud of Cold War anxieties.

Born April 9, 1926 in Chicago, Illinois, Hefner&rsquo;s entry into the world of journalism came as a teenager writing for a military magazine during World War II. After graduating from the University of Illinois, he began working as a copy-editor for men&rsquo;s magazine Esquire, before a pay dispute motivated him to leave the magazine in 1952.

He took out a mortgage and borrowed money from his mother to launch Playboy in 1953. The first issue, which famously featured Marilyn Monroe in the centrefold, indicated the magazine&rsquo;s explicit engagement with matters of sex, fun, and consumerism. In doing so, it challenged the idea of masculinity that had evolved around the nuclear family, and that held particular purchase in the early years of Cold War America.

A new man

The nuclear family - a mum, dad, and kids - was seen as an important barrier to communism in the years after World War II. This relied on specific roles for men and women to uphold the strength of the family and, by extension, the security of the nation.

<figure class="align-right zoomable"><a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/187951/area14mp/file-20170928-1476-1kibkhs.jpg"><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/187951/width237/file-20170928-1476-1kibkhs.jpg" /></a>

<figcaption>
The first cover of Playboy magazine in 1953. <a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playboy">Wikimedia</a>

For American men who had returned from war, being a &ldquo;proper&rdquo; man meant marriage, procreation, and breadwinning. Women were in control of the domestic space. To fall short of this was, as the scholar <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Hearts_of_Men.html?id=3SBFAAAAYAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y">Barbara Ehrenreich</a> notes, to be &ldquo;less than grown up &hellip; the man who willingly deviated was judged to be somehow &lsquo;less than a man&rsquo;.&rdquo;
</figcaption>
</figure>

Playboy dared to go beyond these expectations. Rather than restricting masculinity to the suburban malaise of postwar America, Playboy offered a model of manhood that was intelligent, fun, and sexy and, crucially, set in opposition to marriage.

Such a model was surely inspired by Hefner&rsquo;s own restlessness. Married to Mildred &ldquo;Millie&rdquo; Williams in 1949, he was already feeling the monotony of suburban life. The conventional markers of masculine success &ndash; a beautiful wife, a successful job, and an impressive home &ndash; left him, points our Hefner&#39;s biographer Russell Miller, &ldquo;bored beyond belief&rdquo;. They divorced in 1959.

Hefner, through his life and Playboy, turned the home from a woman&rsquo;s domain to an expression of a man&rsquo;s sophistication and &ldquo;urbane personality&rdquo;. This man could be interested in art, foreign films and literature (the magazine is famously remembered for publishing the works of authors like Ray Bradbury and Jack Kerouac), and took pleasure in bachelorhood, eagerly eschewing marriage and family.

In contrast, the mid-century Australian periodical Man magazine, was a place for men to dream of a life outside marriage, but ultimately accept their fate. Playboy rejected these notions.

Hefner and women

Of course, Playboy&rsquo;s attitude towards women is rightly remembered as problematic at best. The early years of the magazine portrayed American women as emasculating, money-hungry and obsessed with tricking a man into marriage. Such representations are surely offensive, but they speak to an uncertainty and tension that was circulating in the cultural landscape of the postwar US.

As the historian Carrie Pitzulo notes, to say that Playboy is sexist is nothing new. Indeed in his later years, surrounded by a throng of young, attractive women, Hefner seemed to embrace the lifestyle that Playboy advocated to an almost parodic extent. More recently, Playboy&rsquo;s attitude to women has been demonstrated by its on-off association with nudity.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84841/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />However, we might look at Playboy&rsquo;s early years as evidence that masculinity in the 1950s was more complex than popular memories acknowledge, and of the cultural upheaval that Hefner and his iconic publication produced.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" nofollow="" rel="">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hugh-hefner-playboy-and-being-a-man-during-the-cold-war-84841" nofollow="" rel="">original article</a>.

&nbsp;

Playboy?s early years is evidence that masculinity is more complex than popular memories acknowledge, and of the cultural upheaval that Hefner and his iconic publication produced.

As news broke that Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy, had died aged 91, many instantly pointed out to the complicated legacy of both the magazine and the man behind it. Widely portrayed as one with a bevy of young lovers and infamous parties at the Playboy mansion, it would be easy to dismiss Hefner as merely an enduring barrier to the fight for gender equality. Yet to do so would to overlook the significant cultural impact of both Hefner and Playboy, particularly during the 1950s under the shroud of Cold War anxieties. Born April 9, 1926 in Chicago, Illinois, Hefner’s entry into the world of journalism came as a teenager writing for a military magazine during World War II. After graduating from the University of Illinois, he began working as a copy-editor for men’s magazine Esquire, before a pay dispute motivated him to leave the magazine in 1952. He took out a mortgage and borrowed money from his mother to launch Playboy in 1953. The first issue, which famously featured Marilyn Monroe in the centrefold, indicated the magazine’s explicit engagement with matters of sex, fun, and consumerism. In doing so, it challenged the idea of masculinity that had evolved around the nuclear family, and that held particular purchase in the early years of Cold War America. A new man The nuclear family - a mum, dad, and kids - was seen as an important barrier to communism in the years after World War II. This relied on specific roles for men and women to uphold the strength of the family and, by extension, the security of the nation. The first cover of Playboy magazine in 1953. Wikimedia For American men who had returned from war, being a “proper” man meant marriage, procreation, and breadwinning. Women were in control of the domestic space. To fall short of this was, as the scholar Barbara Ehrenreich notes, to be “less than grown up … the man who willingly deviated was judged to be somehow ‘less than a man’.” Playboy dared to go beyond these expectations. Rather than restricting masculinity to the suburban malaise of postwar America, Playboy offered a model of manhood that was intelligent, fun, and sexy and, crucially, set in opposition to marriage. Such a model was surely inspired by Hefner’s own restlessness. Married to Mildred “Millie” Williams in 1949, he was already feeling the monotony of suburban life. The conventional markers of masculine success – a beautiful wife, a successful job, and an impressive home – left him, points our Hefner's biographer Russell Miller, “bored beyond belief”. They divorced in 1959. Hefner, through his life and Playboy, turned the home from a woman’s domain to an expression of a man’s sophistication and “urbane personality”. This man could be interested in art, foreign films and literature (the magazine is famously remembered for publishing the works of authors like Ray Bradbury and Jack Kerouac), and took pleasure in bachelorhood, eagerly eschewing marriage and family. In contrast, the mid-century Australian periodical Man magazine, was a place for men to dream of a life outside marriage, but ultimately accept their fate. Playboy rejected these notions. Hefner and women Of course, Playboy’s attitude towards women is rightly remembered as problematic at best. The early years of the magazine portrayed American women as emasculating, money-hungry and obsessed with tricking a man into marriage. Such representations are surely offensive, but they speak to an uncertainty and tension that was circulating in the cultural landscape of the postwar US. As the historian Carrie Pitzulo notes, to say that Playboy is sexist is nothing new. Indeed in his later years, surrounded by a throng of young, attractive women, Hefner seemed to embrace the lifestyle that Playboy advocated to an almost parodic extent. More recently, Playboy’s attitude to women has been demonstrated by its on-off association with nudity. However, we might look at Playboy’s early years as evidence that masculinity in the 1950s was more complex than popular memories acknowledge, and of the cultural upheaval that Hefner and his iconic publication produced. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Hefner's Playboy: Being a man during the Cold War

Several senior members of Islamic State&#39;s central Asian affiliate were killed in a US&nbsp;air strike in Afghanistan, officials said on Sunday.

The attack on Thursday killed Abdul Rahman, identified by the US&nbsp;military as the Kunar provincial emir for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Khorasan, according to a statement from the command in Kabul.

&quot;The death of Abdul Rahman deals yet another blow to the senior leadership of ISIS-K,&quot; said General John Nicholson, the senior US&nbsp;commander in Afghanistan.

Three other senior ISIS-K members were also among those killed in the strike in eastern Kunar province.

Nicholson has vowed to defeat Islamic State militants in Afghanistan this year.

The group&#39;s emir, Abu Sayed, was reported killed in a strike on his headquarters in Kunar in July, the third Islamic State emir in Afghanistan to be killed since July 2016.

In April, Nicholson deployed a 21,600-pound (9,797 kg) &quot;Massive Ordnance Air Blast&quot; bomb against Islamic State positions in neighboring Nangarhar province, one of the largest conventional weapons ever used by the United States in combat.

On Saturday, Afghan officials said as many as 16 civilians, including women and children, had been killed by a US&nbsp;air strike in Nangarhar, but American officials said only militants were killed.

As part of an increased campaign against both Islamic State and the Taliban, the dominant Islamist militant group in Afghanistan, the US&nbsp;Air Force has dropped nearly 2,000 weapons in the country as of the end of July, compared to fewer than 1,400 in all of last year.

Despite some battlefield successes by Afghan and American special operations troops, Islamic State has continued deadly attacks around Afghanistan, fueling fears that the group is seeking to bring the group&#39;s Middle East conflict to Central Asia.

The attack on Thursday killed Abdul Rahman, identified by the US military as the Kunar provincial emir for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Khorasan

Several senior members of Islamic State's central Asian affiliate were killed in a US air strike in Afghanistan, officials said on Sunday. The attack on Thursday killed Abdul Rahman, identified by the US military as the Kunar provincial emir for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Khorasan, according to a statement from the command in Kabul. "The death of Abdul Rahman deals yet another blow to the senior leadership of ISIS-K," said General John Nicholson, the senior US commander in Afghanistan. Three other senior ISIS-K members were also among those killed in the strike in eastern Kunar province. Nicholson has vowed to defeat Islamic State militants in Afghanistan this year. The group's emir, Abu Sayed, was reported killed in a strike on his headquarters in Kunar in July, the third Islamic State emir in Afghanistan to be killed since July 2016. In April, Nicholson deployed a 21,600-pound (9,797 kg) "Massive Ordnance Air Blast" bomb against Islamic State positions in neighboring Nangarhar province, one of the largest conventional weapons ever used by the United States in combat. On Saturday, Afghan officials said as many as 16 civilians, including women and children, had been killed by a US air strike in Nangarhar, but American officials said only militants were killed. As part of an increased campaign against both Islamic State and the Taliban, the dominant Islamist militant group in Afghanistan, the US Air Force has dropped nearly 2,000 weapons in the country as of the end of July, compared to fewer than 1,400 in all of last year. Despite some battlefield successes by Afghan and American special operations troops, Islamic State has continued deadly attacks around Afghanistan, fueling fears that the group is seeking to bring the group's Middle East conflict to Central Asia.

Senior Islamic State commanders killed in Afghanistan air strike: US military

United States&nbsp;President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the government will not &quot;allow&quot;&nbsp;Transgender people to serve in the US Army.&nbsp;

In a series of Tweets, Trump said that Transgender individuals will not serve in the US military in &quot;any capacity&quot;.&nbsp;

He went on to say that the US military should be focused on &quot;decisive and overwhelming victory&quot; and it will be &quot;burdened with the tremenduous medical costs and disruption that Transgender in the military would entail&quot;.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow......
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890193981585444864">July 26, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming.....
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890196164313833472">July 26, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890197095151546369">July 26, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

According to AFP, an estimated 2,500 to 7,000 transgender people are among the 1.3 million active duty service members.

Last month, Pentagon chief Jim Mattis had delayed for six months a plan put in place under Barack Obama&#39;s administration to start accepting transgender recruits.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Trump said US military should be focused on 'decisive and overwhelming victory' and it will be 'burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that Transgender in the military would entail'

United States President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that the government will not "allow" Transgender people to serve in the US Army. In a series of Tweets, Trump said that Transgender individuals will not serve in the US military in "any capacity". He went on to say that the US military should be focused on "decisive and overwhelming victory" and it will be "burdened with the tremenduous medical costs and disruption that Transgender in the military would entail". After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow...... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017 × ....Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming..... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017 × ....victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017 × According to AFP, an estimated 2,500 to 7,000 transgender people are among the 1.3 million active duty service members. Last month, Pentagon chief Jim Mattis had delayed for six months a plan put in place under Barack Obama's administration to start accepting transgender recruits.

Transgender people 'can't serve' in US Army: Trump

The US&nbsp;military on Tuesday cheered a successful, first-ever missile defence test involving a simulated attack by an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in a major milestone for a programme meant to defend against a mounting North Korean threat.

The US&nbsp;military fired an ICBM-type missile from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands toward the waters just south of Alaska. It then fired a missile to intercept it from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

Experts compare the job to hitting a bullet with another bullet and note the complexity is magnified by the enormous distances involved.

The Missile Defense Agency said it was the first live-fire test against a simulated ICBM for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), managed by Boeing Co, and hailed it as an &quot;incredible accomplishment&quot;.

&quot;This system is vitally important to the defence of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat,&quot; Vice Admiral Jim Syring, director of the agency, said in a statement.

A successful test was by no means guaranteed and the Pentagon sought to manage expectations earlier in the day, noting that the United States had multiple ways to try to shoot down a missile from North Korea.

&quot;This is one element of a broader missile defence strategy that we can use to employ against potential threats,&quot; Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis told reporters.

Prior to Tuesday&#39;s launch, the GMD system had successfully hit its target in only nine of 17 tests since 1999. The last test was in 2014.

North Korea has dramatically ramped up missile tests over the past year in its effort to develop an ICBM that can strike the US mainland.

The continental United States is around 9,000 kilometres&nbsp;(5,500 miles) from North Korea. ICBMs have a minimum range of about 5,500 kilometres&nbsp;(3,400 miles), but some are designed to travel 10,000 kilometres&nbsp;(6,200 miles) or farther.

Riki Ellison, founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, described the test as &quot;vital&quot; prior to launch.

&quot;We are replicating our ability to defend the United States of America from North Korea, today,&quot; Ellison said.

Failure could have deepened concern about a programme that according to one estimate has so far cost more than $40 billion. Its success could translate into calls by Congress to speed development.

In the fiscal year 2018 budget proposal sent to Congress last week, the Pentagon requested $7.9 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, including about $1.5 billion for the GMD programme.

A 2016 assessment released by the Pentagon&#39;s weapons testing office in January said that US&nbsp;ground-based interceptors meant to knock out any incoming ICBM still had low reliability, giving the system a limited capability of shielding the United States.

(Reuters)

In a simulated test to defend against North Korea, a missile launched in California intercepted one launched south of Alaska

The US military on Tuesday cheered a successful, first-ever missile defence test involving a simulated attack by an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), in a major milestone for a programme meant to defend against a mounting North Korean threat. The US military fired an ICBM-type missile from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands toward the waters just south of Alaska. It then fired a missile to intercept it from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Experts compare the job to hitting a bullet with another bullet and note the complexity is magnified by the enormous distances involved. The Missile Defense Agency said it was the first live-fire test against a simulated ICBM for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), managed by Boeing Co, and hailed it as an "incredible accomplishment". "This system is vitally important to the defence of our homeland, and this test demonstrates that we have a capable, credible deterrent against a very real threat," Vice Admiral Jim Syring, director of the agency, said in a statement. A successful test was by no means guaranteed and the Pentagon sought to manage expectations earlier in the day, noting that the United States had multiple ways to try to shoot down a missile from North Korea. "This is one element of a broader missile defence strategy that we can use to employ against potential threats," Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis told reporters. Prior to Tuesday's launch, the GMD system had successfully hit its target in only nine of 17 tests since 1999. The last test was in 2014. North Korea has dramatically ramped up missile tests over the past year in its effort to develop an ICBM that can strike the US mainland. The continental United States is around 9,000 kilometres (5,500 miles) from North Korea. ICBMs have a minimum range of about 5,500 kilometres (3,400 miles), but some are designed to travel 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) or farther. Riki Ellison, founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, described the test as "vital" prior to launch. "We are replicating our ability to defend the United States of America from North Korea, today," Ellison said. Failure could have deepened concern about a programme that according to one estimate has so far cost more than $40 billion. Its success could translate into calls by Congress to speed development. In the fiscal year 2018 budget proposal sent to Congress last week, the Pentagon requested $7.9 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, including about $1.5 billion for the GMD programme. A 2016 assessment released by the Pentagon's weapons testing office in January said that US ground-based interceptors meant to knock out any incoming ICBM still had low reliability, giving the system a limited capability of shielding the United States. (Reuters)

Pentagon successfully tests ICBM defence system for first time

President Donald Trump will ask the US&nbsp;Congress for dramatic cuts to many federal programs as he seeks to bulk up defence spending, start building a wall on the border with Mexico and spend more money deporting illegal immigrants.

In a federal budget proposal with many losers, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department stand out as targets for the biggest spending reductions. Funding would disappear altogether for 19 independent bodies that count on federal money for public broadcasting, the arts and regional issues from Alaska to Appalachia.

Trump&#39;s budget outline is a bare-bones plan covering just &quot;discretionary&quot; spending for the 2018 fiscal year starting on October 1. It is the first volley in what is expected to be an intense battle over spending in coming months in Congress, which holds the federal purse strings and seldom approves presidents&#39; budget plans.

Congress, controlled by Trump&#39;s fellow Republicans, may reject some or many of his proposed cuts. Some of the proposed changes, which Democrats will broadly oppose, have been targeted for decades by conservative Republicans.

Moderate Republicans have already expressed unease with potential cuts to popular domestic programs such as home-heating subsidies, clean-water projects and job training.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

Trump is willing to discuss priorities, said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman who made a name for himself as a spending hawk before Trump plucked him for his Cabinet.

&quot;The president wants to spend more money on defence, more money securing the border, more money enforcing the laws, and more money on school choice, without adding to the deficit,&quot; Mulvaney told a small group of reporters during a preview on Wednesday.

&quot;If they have a different way to accomplish that, we are more than interested in talking to them,&quot; Mulvaney said.

Trump wants to spend $54 billion more on defence, put a down payment on his border wall, and breathe life into a few other campaign promises. His initial budget outline does not incorporate his promise to pour $1 trillion into roads, bridges, airports and other infrastructure projects. The White House has said the infrastructure plan is still to come.

The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit. Mulvaney acknowledged the proposal would likely result in significant cuts to the federal workforce.

&quot;You can&rsquo;t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,&quot; Mulvaney said.

&#39;America first&#39;

White House officials looked at Trump&#39;s campaign speeches and &quot;America First&quot; pledges as they crunched the numbers, Mulvaney said.

&quot;We turned those policies into numbers,&quot; he said, explaining how the document mirrored pledges to spend more on the US&nbsp;nuclear weapons arsenal, veterans&#39; health care, the FBI, and Justice Department efforts to fight drug dealers and violent crime.

The Department of Homeland Security would get a 6.8 per cent increase, with more money for extra staff needed to catch, detain and deport illegal immigrants.

Trump wants Congress to shell out $1.5 billion for the border wall with Mexico in the current fiscal year -- enough for pilot projects to determine the best way to build it -- and a further $2.6 billion in fiscal 2018, Mulvaney said.

The estimate of the full cost of the wall will be included in the full budget, expected in mid-May, which will project spending and revenues over 10 years.

Trump has vowed Mexico will pay for the border wall, which the Mexican government has flatly said it will not do. The White House has said recently that funding would be kick-started in the United States.

The voluminous budget document will include economic forecasts and Trump&#39;s views on &quot;mandatory entitlements&quot; -- big-ticket programs like Social Security and Medicare, which Trump vowed to protect on the campaign trail.

Biggest losers

Trump asked Congress to slash the EPA by $2.6 billion or more than 31 per cent, and the State Department by more than 28 per cent or $10.9 billion.

Mulvaney said the &quot;core functions&quot; of those agencies would be preserved. Hit hard would be foreign aid, grants to multilateral development agencies like the World Bank and climate change programs at the United Nations.

Trump wants to get rid of more than 50 EPA programs, end funding for former Democratic President Barack Obama&#39;s signature Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and cut renewable energy research programs at the Energy Department.

Regional programs to clean up the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay would be sent to the chopping block.

Community development grants at the Housing Department - around since 1974 - were cut in Trump&#39;s budget, along with more than 20 Education Department programs, including some funding program for before- and after- school programs.

Anti-poverty grants and a program that helps poor people pay their energy bills would be slashed, as well as a Labor Department program that helps low-income seniors find work.

Trump&#39;s rural base did not escape cuts. The White House proposed a 21 per cent reduction to the Agriculture Department, cutting loans and grants for wastewater, reducing staff in county offices and ending a popular program that helps US&nbsp;farmers donate crops for overseas food aid.

(Reuters)

Trump wants to slash the EPA's budget by 31%, the State Department's by more than 28%

President Donald Trump will ask the US Congress for dramatic cuts to many federal programs as he seeks to bulk up defence spending, start building a wall on the border with Mexico and spend more money deporting illegal immigrants. In a federal budget proposal with many losers, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department stand out as targets for the biggest spending reductions. Funding would disappear altogether for 19 independent bodies that count on federal money for public broadcasting, the arts and regional issues from Alaska to Appalachia. Trump's budget outline is a bare-bones plan covering just "discretionary" spending for the 2018 fiscal year starting on October 1. It is the first volley in what is expected to be an intense battle over spending in coming months in Congress, which holds the federal purse strings and seldom approves presidents' budget plans. Congress, controlled by Trump's fellow Republicans, may reject some or many of his proposed cuts. Some of the proposed changes, which Democrats will broadly oppose, have been targeted for decades by conservative Republicans. Moderate Republicans have already expressed unease with potential cuts to popular domestic programs such as home-heating subsidies, clean-water projects and job training. The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit × Trump is willing to discuss priorities, said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman who made a name for himself as a spending hawk before Trump plucked him for his Cabinet. "The president wants to spend more money on defence, more money securing the border, more money enforcing the laws, and more money on school choice, without adding to the deficit," Mulvaney told a small group of reporters during a preview on Wednesday. "If they have a different way to accomplish that, we are more than interested in talking to them," Mulvaney said. Trump wants to spend $54 billion more on defence, put a down payment on his border wall, and breathe life into a few other campaign promises. His initial budget outline does not incorporate his promise to pour $1 trillion into roads, bridges, airports and other infrastructure projects. The White House has said the infrastructure plan is still to come. The defence increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit. Mulvaney acknowledged the proposal would likely result in significant cuts to the federal workforce. "You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it," Mulvaney said. 'America first' White House officials looked at Trump's campaign speeches and "America First" pledges as they crunched the numbers, Mulvaney said. "We turned those policies into numbers," he said, explaining how the document mirrored pledges to spend more on the US nuclear weapons arsenal, veterans' health care, the FBI, and Justice Department efforts to fight drug dealers and violent crime. The Department of Homeland Security would get a 6.8 per cent increase, with more money for extra staff needed to catch, detain and deport illegal immigrants. Trump wants Congress to shell out $1.5 billion for the border wall with Mexico in the current fiscal year -- enough for pilot projects to determine the best way to build it -- and a further $2.6 billion in fiscal 2018, Mulvaney said. The estimate of the full cost of the wall will be included in the full budget, expected in mid-May, which will project spending and revenues over 10 years. Trump has vowed Mexico will pay for the border wall, which the Mexican government has flatly said it will not do. The White House has said recently that funding would be kick-started in the United States. The voluminous budget document will include economic forecasts and Trump's views on "mandatory entitlements" -- big-ticket programs like Social Security and Medicare, which Trump vowed to protect on the campaign trail. Biggest losers Trump asked Congress to slash the EPA by $2.6 billion or more than 31 per cent, and the State Department by more than 28 per cent or $10.9 billion. Mulvaney said the "core functions" of those agencies would be preserved. Hit hard would be foreign aid, grants to multilateral development agencies like the World Bank and climate change programs at the United Nations. Trump wants to get rid of more than 50 EPA programs, end funding for former Democratic President Barack Obama's signature Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and cut renewable energy research programs at the Energy Department. Regional programs to clean up the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay would be sent to the chopping block. Community development grants at the Housing Department - around since 1974 - were cut in Trump's budget, along with more than 20 Education Department programs, including some funding program for before- and after- school programs. Anti-poverty grants and a program that helps poor people pay their energy bills would be slashed, as well as a Labor Department program that helps low-income seniors find work. Trump's rural base did not escape cuts. The White House proposed a 21 per cent reduction to the Agriculture Department, cutting loans and grants for wastewater, reducing staff in county offices and ending a popular program that helps US farmers donate crops for overseas food aid. (Reuters)

In Trump's first budget proposal, military wins, environment & aid lose big

The top US military commander for the Middle East warned Thursday that the United States would need more troops on the ground in Afghanistan to stave off a resurgent Taliban.

General Joseph Votel, who heads US Central Command (Centcom), told the Senate Armed Forces Committee he was currently working on a new strategy to break the war out of a stalemate.

&quot;I do believe it will involve additional forces to ensure that we can make the advise-and-assist mission more effective,&quot; he said.

US-led forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for 16 years, making it already longest-ever war for the United States.

The question of whether to double down in the seemingly endless conflict is set to be one of the first major military strategy questions of President Donald Trump&#39;s term.&nbsp;

General John Nicholson, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, said last month he needs thousands more troops to break the stalemate.

According to Votel, the question of reinforcing US troops in the country is being discussed &quot;right now&quot; between the US military and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.

Trump has yet to lay out a detailed new strategy for Afghanistan, but during the campaign he reluctantly accepted that US troops would remain.

His predecessor&nbsp;Barack Obama&nbsp;had pledged to pull US troops out of Afghanistan, but proved unable to follow through on the promise faced with the Taliban resurgence.

The NATO alliance has 13,300 troops in Afghanistan, about half of them American, assisting a much larger Afghan force in a war against the Taliban and other Islamist militants.

The&nbsp;United States has a total of 8,400 military personnel in the country, when including the special forces battling Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group independently from the NATO mission.

Afghan government police and armed forces now take the lead in the battle against the Taliban, which was forced from power in Kabul after the 2001 US-led invasion.

But the Afghans are facing mounting casualties -- their losses in 2016 were up by a third over 2015, with 6,785 killed in the first 10 months of the year -- and losing ground.

Last year was also particularly deadly for Afghan civilians: a UN report found that 11,500 were killed or injured, the most since it began keeping records in 2009.&nbsp;

At least 38 people died Wednesday when gunmen disguised as doctors stormed Afghanistan&#39;s largest military hospital&nbsp;in attack an claimed by IS jihadists who are making inroads into the war-battered country.

The assault came just a week after 16 people were killed in simultaneous Taliban suicide assaults on two security compounds in Kabul.

(AFP)

General Joseph Votel, the top US military commander for the Middle East, said more troops were needed to end the 16-year-old conflict

The top US military commander for the Middle East warned Thursday that the United States would need more troops on the ground in Afghanistan to stave off a resurgent Taliban. General Joseph Votel, who heads US Central Command (Centcom), told the Senate Armed Forces Committee he was currently working on a new strategy to break the war out of a stalemate. "I do believe it will involve additional forces to ensure that we can make the advise-and-assist mission more effective," he said. US-led forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for 16 years, making it already longest-ever war for the United States. The question of whether to double down in the seemingly endless conflict is set to be one of the first major military strategy questions of President Donald Trump's term. General John Nicholson, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, said last month he needs thousands more troops to break the stalemate. According to Votel, the question of reinforcing US troops in the country is being discussed "right now" between the US military and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Trump has yet to lay out a detailed new strategy for Afghanistan, but during the campaign he reluctantly accepted that US troops would remain. His predecessor Barack Obama had pledged to pull US troops out of Afghanistan, but proved unable to follow through on the promise faced with the Taliban resurgence. The NATO alliance has 13,300 troops in Afghanistan, about half of them American, assisting a much larger Afghan force in a war against the Taliban and other Islamist militants. The United States has a total of 8,400 military personnel in the country, when including the special forces battling Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State group independently from the NATO mission. Afghan government police and armed forces now take the lead in the battle against the Taliban, which was forced from power in Kabul after the 2001 US-led invasion. But the Afghans are facing mounting casualties -- their losses in 2016 were up by a third over 2015, with 6,785 killed in the first 10 months of the year -- and losing ground. Last year was also particularly deadly for Afghan civilians: a UN report found that 11,500 were killed or injured, the most since it began keeping records in 2009. At least 38 people died Wednesday when gunmen disguised as doctors stormed Afghanistan's largest military hospital in attack an claimed by IS jihadists who are making inroads into the war-battered country. The assault came just a week after 16 people were killed in simultaneous Taliban suicide assaults on two security compounds in Kabul. (AFP)

More troops needed in Afghanistan to stave off Taliban: US military

The US military has officially ended operations in a former Islamic State bastion in Libya, officials have announced.

The Pentagon had launched Operation Odyssey Lightning to help local forces push the jihadists from the coastal city of Sirte on August 1.

&quot;In partnership with the Libyan Government of National Accord, the operation succeeded in its core objective of enabling GNA-aligned forces to drive Daesh (IS) out of Sirte,&quot; the US military&#39;s Africa Command said in a statement.

US drones, gunships and warplanes had hammered IS positions, conducting a total of 495 strikes.

&quot;We are proud to have supported this campaign to eliminate ISIL&#39;s hold over the only city it has controlled outside Iraq and Syria,&quot; Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook told reporters, using an IS acronym.

Officials said the United States would continue to strike IS jihadists if the Libyan unity government asked for help in doing so.

Unity government leader Fayez al-Sarraj on Saturday announced that military operations in Sirte were done, but IS still has fighters in Libya and on Sunday conducted a suicide attack in Benghazi.

The fall of Sirte -- Kadhafi&#39;s home town located 450 kilometres east of Tripoli -- is a major setback for IS, which has also faced military defeats in Syria and Iraq.

Libya descended into chaos following the NATO-backed ousting of longtime dictator Moamer Kadhafi in 2011, with rival administrations emerging and well-armed militias vying for control of its vast oil wealth.

(AFP)

Officials said the United States would continue to strike Islamic State jihadists if the Libyan unity government asked for help in doing so

The US military has officially ended operations in a former Islamic State bastion in Libya, officials have announced. The Pentagon had launched Operation Odyssey Lightning to help local forces push the jihadists from the coastal city of Sirte on August 1. "In partnership with the Libyan Government of National Accord, the operation succeeded in its core objective of enabling GNA-aligned forces to drive Daesh (IS) out of Sirte," the US military's Africa Command said in a statement. US drones, gunships and warplanes had hammered IS positions, conducting a total of 495 strikes. "We are proud to have supported this campaign to eliminate ISIL's hold over the only city it has controlled outside Iraq and Syria," Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook told reporters, using an IS acronym. Officials said the United States would continue to strike IS jihadists if the Libyan unity government asked for help in doing so. Unity government leader Fayez al-Sarraj on Saturday announced that military operations in Sirte were done, but IS still has fighters in Libya and on Sunday conducted a suicide attack in Benghazi. The fall of Sirte -- Kadhafi's home town located 450 kilometres east of Tripoli -- is a major setback for IS, which has also faced military defeats in Syria and Iraq. Libya descended into chaos following the NATO-backed ousting of longtime dictator Moamer Kadhafi in 2011, with rival administrations emerging and well-armed militias vying for control of its vast oil wealth. (AFP)

US military formally ends anti-IS operation in Libya's Sirte

Four Americans have been killed and 14 wounded in an explosion at a US military base in &nbsp;Afghanistan on Saturday.

Two servicemembers and two contractors were killed at Bagram Airfield by &quot;an apparent suicide bomber,&quot; Carter said in a statement, news agency AFP reported. Carter added that&nbsp;16 other US servicemembers and a Polish soldier participating in US-led NATO military operations was&nbsp;also wounded.

&quot;An explosive device was detonated on Bagram Airfield resulting in multiple casualties. Response teams at Bagram continue to treat the wounded and investigate the incident,&quot; the military coalition said in a statement, AFP reported.

Earlier, Abdul Shokor Qodosi, the district governor of Bagram, had told Reuters that at least three people were killed and 13 injured in the blast.

He also said the blast occurred near a dining facility at the Bagram Airfield, located north of Kabul.

The Taliban&#39;s spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, claimed responsibility for the attack in a message on his Twitter account.

&quot;We can confirm that there was an explosion at Bagram Airfield this morning just after 5:30 am (0100 GMT). There have been casualties,&quot; NATO said in a brief statement.

&quot;Our Force Protection and medical teams are responding to the situation,&quot; the statement added.

Carter&nbsp;expressed his &quot;sincere condolences&quot; to the families of the fallen and promised to &quot;investigate this tragedy to determine any steps we can take to improve it&quot;.

As for the attackers, &quot;my message is simple. We will not be deterred in our mission to protect our homeland and help Afghanistan secure its own future,&quot; he added.

The nationalities of the casualties have not been confirmed yet.

Bagram Airfield is the largest US military base in Afghanistan.

Last December, a motorcycle-riding Taliban suicide bomber killed six US soldiers near Afghanistan&#39;s largest US military base.

(WION with inputs from agencies)

The explosion wounded 16 other US service members and a Polish soldier participating in US-led NATO military operations

Four Americans have been killed and 14 wounded in an explosion at a US military base in Afghanistan on Saturday. Two servicemembers and two contractors were killed at Bagram Airfield by "an apparent suicide bomber," Carter said in a statement, news agency AFP reported. Carter added that 16 other US servicemembers and a Polish soldier participating in US-led NATO military operations was also wounded. "An explosive device was detonated on Bagram Airfield resulting in multiple casualties. Response teams at Bagram continue to treat the wounded and investigate the incident," the military coalition said in a statement, AFP reported. Earlier, Abdul Shokor Qodosi, the district governor of Bagram, had told Reuters that at least three people were killed and 13 injured in the blast. He also said the blast occurred near a dining facility at the Bagram Airfield, located north of Kabul. The Taliban's spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, claimed responsibility for the attack in a message on his Twitter account. "We can confirm that there was an explosion at Bagram Airfield this morning just after 5:30 am (0100 GMT). There have been casualties," NATO said in a brief statement. "Our Force Protection and medical teams are responding to the situation," the statement added. Carter expressed his "sincere condolences" to the families of the fallen and promised to "investigate this tragedy to determine any steps we can take to improve it". As for the attackers, "my message is simple. We will not be deterred in our mission to protect our homeland and help Afghanistan secure its own future," he added. The nationalities of the casualties have not been confirmed yet. Bagram Airfield is the largest US military base in Afghanistan. Last December, a motorcycle-riding Taliban suicide bomber killed six US soldiers near Afghanistan's largest US military base. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Afghanistan: Four Americans killed in blast at US base, Taliban claims responsibility

Boarding a flight? Active service members go first. Watching a sports event? Then you&#39;ll stand and applaud a group of veterans at some point during the game. 
 
America puts its service members on a unique pedestal: they are revered and yet poorly understood. 
 
When Donald Trump insulted the bereaved parents of a soldier killed in Iraq, he broke a US taboo: that troops, veterans and above all their grieving relatives are beyond reproach. 
 
You can disagree with their politics, but you must honor their sacrifice. 
 
Alexander McCoy, 28, a former Marine sergeant studying political science at New York&#39;s Columbia University, says he has been upgraded to first and business class, had strangers buy him a beer or pay for his meals, and is offered discounts on movie or theme park tickets simply for being a veteran. 
 
&quot;I do think that America as a culture prizes military service,&quot; McCoy said. &quot;Americans kind of mythologise warfare because they have so little experience with it in America.&quot; 
 
Unlike many other countries, including Germany where McCoy was stationed, a vast majority of the United States has not experienced war at home since the 1861-65 Civil War. 
 
Other than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 - more than 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) from the mainland - the September 11, 2001 hijackings were the first major foreign attack on US soil in centuries. 
 
The influence of 9/11, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, shattered feelings of safety and bolstered support for the military - cast as the defenders of America. 
 
Then president George W Bush quickly sent troops to Afghanistan, and then invaded Iraq. Americans tied yellow ribbons to their vehicles, waved flags and rallied behind the soldiers, holding them above any criticism of the foreign policy behind the wars. 
 
&#39;Family business&#39; 
 
&quot;The Bush administration, and the federal government more broadly, cultivated a kind of popular nationalism after 9/11 for all kinds of reasons,&quot; said Michael Allen, a history professor at Northwestern University. 
 
&quot;Bush relied on his gut,&quot; Allen said. &quot;How to publicly sell the war on terror - that was where he really excelled, because it was instinctive for him,&quot; he said. &quot;It was very natural for him to rally around the flag.&quot; 
 
But the military has not always been so venerated. Opposition to the Vietnam War was so vehement that veterans were treated abominably despite 25 per cent of the troops having been drafted and the deaths of more than 58,200. 
 
Yet if veneration has increased towards today&#39;s all-volunteer force, in which less than one per cent of the population currently serve, so too has a profound disconnect with the civilian world. 
 
US military bases - once scattered all over the country - have been consolidated. Many who serve come from a military background, which McCoy believes is creating a &quot;family business&quot; - almost &quot;a warrior caste&quot;. 
 
&quot;People respect vets,&quot; says Deborah Gahm, an accountant from Phoenix, Arizona, whose husband has served for more than 20 years, including in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. 
 
&quot;But I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a deep level of respect, I think it&#39;s very much on the surface. In many respects, it&#39;s just lip service,&quot; she said. 
 
There has been also chronic under-investment in programs that help soldiers transition back into civilian life. Congress is considering major cuts to the educational and housing allowances offered to vets. 
 
&quot;When we make promises to people that sign a contract that could get them killed, we ought to keep those promises. So there are people who like to say that they support our troops but then they don&#39;t,&quot; Gahm said. 
 
Damaging stereotypes 
 
Gahm says she is troubled by the Hollywood portrayal of returning warriors as violent or struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and believes the public too often treats veterans as victims. 
 
&quot;I think there are really damaging stereotypes out there,&quot; she said. &quot;Even vets who have PTSD rarely do violent acts,&quot; she added. 
 
While her husband was in Iraq, she once went out to eat with their daughter, and women at the next table were accusing soldiers of signing up to murder, she said. She asked to be moved to shield her daughter from the comments. 
 
Allen sees the roots of today&#39;s rituals honoring vets in Richard Nixon&#39;s attempts to sideline the anti-Vietnam war movement by identifying with conventional, conservative America and using sport to do so. 
 
He would &quot;obsessively&quot; call attention to his watching of football and bring returning prisoners of war to sporting events, Allen said. POWs were given lifetime free passes to major league baseball games. 
 
Reassessment of the damage done to veterans by the anti-Vietnam backlash has seen Democrats join Republicans in adopting trenchant support for the military. 
 
&quot;The lesson learned by the political left was you must never criticise soldiers and veterans, it&#39;s absolutely forbidden - to some degree, always the attitude on the political right,&quot; said Allen. 
 
&quot;You can&#39;t go around criticising a Gold Star family. That&#39;s really very taboo to do,&quot; said Gahm of Trump&#39;s laceration of Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of a Muslim soldier who was killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq. 
 
(AFP) 
&nbsp;

The Republican presidential nominee broke a US taboo -- that troops, veterans and above all their grieving relatives are beyond reproach

Boarding a flight? Active service members go first. Watching a sports event? Then you'll stand and applaud a group of veterans at some point during the game. America puts its service members on a unique pedestal: they are revered and yet poorly understood. When Donald Trump insulted the bereaved parents of a soldier killed in Iraq, he broke a US taboo: that troops, veterans and above all their grieving relatives are beyond reproach. You can disagree with their politics, but you must honor their sacrifice. Alexander McCoy, 28, a former Marine sergeant studying political science at New York's Columbia University, says he has been upgraded to first and business class, had strangers buy him a beer or pay for his meals, and is offered discounts on movie or theme park tickets simply for being a veteran. "I do think that America as a culture prizes military service," McCoy said. "Americans kind of mythologise warfare because they have so little experience with it in America." Unlike many other countries, including Germany where McCoy was stationed, a vast majority of the United States has not experienced war at home since the 1861-65 Civil War. Other than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 - more than 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) from the mainland - the September 11, 2001 hijackings were the first major foreign attack on US soil in centuries. The influence of 9/11, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, shattered feelings of safety and bolstered support for the military - cast as the defenders of America. Then president George W Bush quickly sent troops to Afghanistan, and then invaded Iraq. Americans tied yellow ribbons to their vehicles, waved flags and rallied behind the soldiers, holding them above any criticism of the foreign policy behind the wars. 'Family business' "The Bush administration, and the federal government more broadly, cultivated a kind of popular nationalism after 9/11 for all kinds of reasons," said Michael Allen, a history professor at Northwestern University. "Bush relied on his gut," Allen said. "How to publicly sell the war on terror - that was where he really excelled, because it was instinctive for him," he said. "It was very natural for him to rally around the flag." But the military has not always been so venerated. Opposition to the Vietnam War was so vehement that veterans were treated abominably despite 25 per cent of the troops having been drafted and the deaths of more than 58,200. Yet if veneration has increased towards today's all-volunteer force, in which less than one per cent of the population currently serve, so too has a profound disconnect with the civilian world. US military bases - once scattered all over the country - have been consolidated. Many who serve come from a military background, which McCoy believes is creating a "family business" - almost "a warrior caste". "People respect vets," says Deborah Gahm, an accountant from Phoenix, Arizona, whose husband has served for more than 20 years, including in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. "But I don't think it's a deep level of respect, I think it's very much on the surface. In many respects, it's just lip service," she said. There has been also chronic under-investment in programs that help soldiers transition back into civilian life. Congress is considering major cuts to the educational and housing allowances offered to vets. "When we make promises to people that sign a contract that could get them killed, we ought to keep those promises. So there are people who like to say that they support our troops but then they don't," Gahm said. Damaging stereotypes Gahm says she is troubled by the Hollywood portrayal of returning warriors as violent or struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and believes the public too often treats veterans as victims. "I think there are really damaging stereotypes out there," she said. "Even vets who have PTSD rarely do violent acts," she added. While her husband was in Iraq, she once went out to eat with their daughter, and women at the next table were accusing soldiers of signing up to murder, she said. She asked to be moved to shield her daughter from the comments. Allen sees the roots of today's rituals honoring vets in Richard Nixon's attempts to sideline the anti-Vietnam war movement by identifying with conventional, conservative America and using sport to do so. He would "obsessively" call attention to his watching of football and bring returning prisoners of war to sporting events, Allen said. POWs were given lifetime free passes to major league baseball games. Reassessment of the damage done to veterans by the anti-Vietnam backlash has seen Democrats join Republicans in adopting trenchant support for the military. "The lesson learned by the political left was you must never criticise soldiers and veterans, it's absolutely forbidden - to some degree, always the attitude on the political right," said Allen. "You can't go around criticising a Gold Star family. That's really very taboo to do," said Gahm of Trump's laceration of Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of a Muslim soldier who was killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq. (AFP)

Another redline crossed with Trump insulting parents of fallen US soldier

North Korea fired a ballistic missile directly into Japanese-controlled waters for the first time today, drawing an outraged response from Tokyo and ramping up tensions with the United States and South Korea. 
 
The US military said the North had actually launched two Rodong intermediate-range missiles simultaneously, but one appeared to have exploded on take-off. 
 
The launches followed a North Korean threat of &quot;physical action&quot; over the planned deployment of a sophisticated US anti-missile system in South Korea, and came just weeks before the start of large-scale, joint South Korea-US military exercises. 
 
Abe: Serious threat against national security 
 
Japan said the one missile had landed in the Sea of Japan, some 250 kilometre off its northern coast and within the country&#39;s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 
 
&quot;It&#39;s a serious threat against our country&#39;s security,&quot; Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters. &quot;This is an outrageous act that cannot be tolerated.&quot;&nbsp; 
 
The United States condemned what it called a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions explicitly prohibiting North Korea&#39;s use of ballistic missile technology. 
 
&quot;This provocation only serves to increase the international community&#39;s resolve to counter (North Korea&#39;s) prohibited activities,&quot; said Pentagon spokesman Gary Ross. 
 
US strategic command said the two missiles were launched from a site in western North Korea at around 7.50 am Seoul time (22:50 GMT Tuesday). 
 
&quot;Initial indications reveal one of the missiles exploded immediately after launch, while the second was tracked over North Korea and into the Sea of Japan,&quot; it said in a statement. 
 
It was the first time a North Korean missile has been fired direct into Japanese waters. The second stage of a medium-range missile fired over Japan had splashed down inside the EEZ off Japan&#39;s Pacific Ocean coast in 1998. 
 
 
Japan slams&nbsp;Pyongyang 
 
Japan&#39;s top government spokesman Yoshihide Suga slammed Pyongyang for providing no advance warning of today&#39;s test. 
 
&quot;From the perspective of the safety of aircraft and ships, it is an extremely problematic, dangerous act,&quot; Suga said. 
 
The Rodong is a scaled-up Scud variant with a maximum range of around 1,300 kilometres. 
 
Pyongyang has conducted a series of missile tests this year in defiance of UN sanctions imposed after its fourth nuclear test in January. 
 
On July 19, it launched three ballistic missiles - including one Rodong - in an exercise that the North said simulated a nuclear strike on the South. That came just days after Washington and Seoul announced an agreement to deploy the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defence, or THAAD, system in South Korea by the end of next year - a move condemned by Pyongyang and also vehemently opposed by China and Russia. 
 
South Korean foreign minister Yun Byung-Se said today&#39;s missile test only served to &quot;underline the need to deploy THAAD.&quot; 
 
Tensions building up on divided Korean peninsula&nbsp; 
 
Tensions on the divided Korean peninsula are also building up ahead of an annual South Korea-US military exercise later this month that involves tens of thousands of troops. 
 
North Korea says such drills are a provocative rehearsal for invasion, while Washington and Seoul insist they are purely defensive in nature. 
 
&quot;Our commitment to the defence of our allies, including the Republic of Korea and Japan, in the face of these threats, is ironclad,&quot; Ross said today. 
 
&quot;We remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies from any attack or provocation,&quot; he added. 
 
There are nearly 30,000 US troops permanently stationed in South Korea. 
 
Pyongyang has repeatedly warned of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the South and US targets there and elsewhere, although the main focus of its nuclear weapons programme is to develop a credible strike threat against the US mainland. 
 
Since its fourth nuclear test, North Korea has claimed a series of technical breakthroughs for its weapons programme. 
 
It said it had miniaturised a nuclear warhead and successfully tested an engine designed for an inter-continental ballistic missile that could reach the US mainland.&nbsp; 
 
While some experts say the claims are exaggerated, most acknowledge that the North&#39;s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes have made significant strides. 
 
(AFP)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

US says actually two missiles had been fired, but one appeared to have exploded on take-off

North Korea fired a ballistic missile directly into Japanese-controlled waters for the first time today, drawing an outraged response from Tokyo and ramping up tensions with the United States and South Korea. The US military said the North had actually launched two Rodong intermediate-range missiles simultaneously, but one appeared to have exploded on take-off. The launches followed a North Korean threat of "physical action" over the planned deployment of a sophisticated US anti-missile system in South Korea, and came just weeks before the start of large-scale, joint South Korea-US military exercises. Abe: Serious threat against national security Japan said the one missile had landed in the Sea of Japan, some 250 kilometre off its northern coast and within the country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). "It's a serious threat against our country's security," Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told reporters. "This is an outrageous act that cannot be tolerated." The United States condemned what it called a clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions explicitly prohibiting North Korea's use of ballistic missile technology. "This provocation only serves to increase the international community's resolve to counter (North Korea's) prohibited activities," said Pentagon spokesman Gary Ross. US strategic command said the two missiles were launched from a site in western North Korea at around 7.50 am Seoul time (22:50 GMT Tuesday). "Initial indications reveal one of the missiles exploded immediately after launch, while the second was tracked over North Korea and into the Sea of Japan," it said in a statement. It was the first time a North Korean missile has been fired direct into Japanese waters. The second stage of a medium-range missile fired over Japan had splashed down inside the EEZ off Japan's Pacific Ocean coast in 1998. Japan slams Pyongyang Japan's top government spokesman Yoshihide Suga slammed Pyongyang for providing no advance warning of today's test. "From the perspective of the safety of aircraft and ships, it is an extremely problematic, dangerous act," Suga said. The Rodong is a scaled-up Scud variant with a maximum range of around 1,300 kilometres. Pyongyang has conducted a series of missile tests this year in defiance of UN sanctions imposed after its fourth nuclear test in January. On July 19, it launched three ballistic missiles - including one Rodong - in an exercise that the North said simulated a nuclear strike on the South. That came just days after Washington and Seoul announced an agreement to deploy the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defence, or THAAD, system in South Korea by the end of next year - a move condemned by Pyongyang and also vehemently opposed by China and Russia. South Korean foreign minister Yun Byung-Se said today's missile test only served to "underline the need to deploy THAAD." Tensions building up on divided Korean peninsula Tensions on the divided Korean peninsula are also building up ahead of an annual South Korea-US military exercise later this month that involves tens of thousands of troops. North Korea says such drills are a provocative rehearsal for invasion, while Washington and Seoul insist they are purely defensive in nature. "Our commitment to the defence of our allies, including the Republic of Korea and Japan, in the face of these threats, is ironclad," Ross said today. "We remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies from any attack or provocation," he added. There are nearly 30,000 US troops permanently stationed in South Korea. Pyongyang has repeatedly warned of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against the South and US targets there and elsewhere, although the main focus of its nuclear weapons programme is to develop a credible strike threat against the US mainland. Since its fourth nuclear test, North Korea has claimed a series of technical breakthroughs for its weapons programme. It said it had miniaturised a nuclear warhead and successfully tested an engine designed for an inter-continental ballistic missile that could reach the US mainland. While some experts say the claims are exaggerated, most acknowledge that the North's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes have made significant strides. (AFP)

North Korea fires missile into Japan waters for first time, draws Tokyo ire

The Pentagon today ended its ban on openly transgender people serving in the US military, formally removing the risk to an estimated thousands of US troops who once could have been kicked out of the armed forces due to gender identity. 
 
The repeal, which ends one of the last barriers to serving in the military, comes after a 2011 decision to end the US military&#39;s ban on openly gay and lesbian people serving, despite concerns - which proved unfounded - that such a move could be too great a burden in wartime and would undermine battle readiness. 
 
&quot;We&#39;re eliminating policies that can result in transgender members being treated differently from their peers based solely upon their gender identity rather than upon their ability to serve,&quot; defence secretary Ash Carter told reporters. 
 
Carter said that within 90 days, the Pentagon would create a guide book for commanders on how to lead transgender service members and medical guidance to doctors. 
 
Within one year, transgender individuals would be allowed to join the armed forces, he said. 
 
Carter said that based on a study carried out by the Rand Corporation, there were about 2,500 transgender active-duty servicemembers and 1,500 reserve transgender service members. Still, Rand&#39;s figures were within a range, which at the upper end reached 7,000 active duty forces and 4,000 reserves. 
 
&quot;The reality is that we have transgender service members serving in uniform today,&quot; Carter said, acknowledging the policy change will have implications for issues including deployment and medical treatment. 
 
He added that at least 18 countries already allowed transgender personnel to serve openly in their militaries. 
 
Carter announced in 2015 that he intended to lift the ban and laid out a series of steps, including a six-month study on the implications of lifting the restrictions. But advocates for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community said the process, which eventually stretched to nearly a year, has taken too long. 
 
Advocates praised Carter&#39;s announcement today and said it followed several moves by the military to be more inclusive in the last decade. 
 
&quot;I would hope that it showcases the fact that the sky will not fall, the world will not come apart, by us being a more inclusive and open society,&quot; said Matt Thorn, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an advocacy group for LGBT military personnel. &quot;I don&#39;t think anybody should be concerned or afraid about moving forward with this policy.&quot; 
 
But critics have argued that Carter is putting the political agenda of the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama ahead of military readiness. 
 
&quot;Over the next few weeks, we are going to continue to push for actual answers to the readiness questions we&rsquo;ve been asking for nearly a year to which we have still not received a response,&quot; Republican representative Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. 
 
(Reuters)

Commanders will be given handbooks detailing how they are to be led, and doctors will be provided medical advice

The Pentagon today ended its ban on openly transgender people serving in the US military, formally removing the risk to an estimated thousands of US troops who once could have been kicked out of the armed forces due to gender identity. The repeal, which ends one of the last barriers to serving in the military, comes after a 2011 decision to end the US military's ban on openly gay and lesbian people serving, despite concerns - which proved unfounded - that such a move could be too great a burden in wartime and would undermine battle readiness. "We're eliminating policies that can result in transgender members being treated differently from their peers based solely upon their gender identity rather than upon their ability to serve," defence secretary Ash Carter told reporters. Carter said that within 90 days, the Pentagon would create a guide book for commanders on how to lead transgender service members and medical guidance to doctors. Within one year, transgender individuals would be allowed to join the armed forces, he said. Carter said that based on a study carried out by the Rand Corporation, there were about 2,500 transgender active-duty servicemembers and 1,500 reserve transgender service members. Still, Rand's figures were within a range, which at the upper end reached 7,000 active duty forces and 4,000 reserves. "The reality is that we have transgender service members serving in uniform today," Carter said, acknowledging the policy change will have implications for issues including deployment and medical treatment. He added that at least 18 countries already allowed transgender personnel to serve openly in their militaries. Carter announced in 2015 that he intended to lift the ban and laid out a series of steps, including a six-month study on the implications of lifting the restrictions. But advocates for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community said the process, which eventually stretched to nearly a year, has taken too long. Advocates praised Carter's announcement today and said it followed several moves by the military to be more inclusive in the last decade. "I would hope that it showcases the fact that the sky will not fall, the world will not come apart, by us being a more inclusive and open society," said Matt Thorn, executive director of OutServe-SLDN, an advocacy group for LGBT military personnel. "I don't think anybody should be concerned or afraid about moving forward with this policy." But critics have argued that Carter is putting the political agenda of the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama ahead of military readiness. "Over the next few weeks, we are going to continue to push for actual answers to the readiness questions we’ve been asking for nearly a year to which we have still not received a response," Republican representative Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said in a statement. (Reuters)

US Army ends ban on transgender people

us-military

Us Military, News on Us Military, stories on Us Military, articles on Us Military, Us Military stories at Wion, Us Military news, Us Military latest news

us military