We watched elite US special operators run through a Taiwan crisis assault. They fought off drones and blasted into an enemy command center.
The scenario reflected a potential fight during a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
The operators and leadership spoke to the importance of new innovations and readiness.
FORT BRAGG, North Carolina — The low hum of a quadcopter drone cuts through the air like a buzzing bee. It's faint and difficult to track. The sound grows louder as the swarm builds.
The drones are fast and small and hard to see, but the noise of the growing swarm is becoming overwhelming. They are rushing over barren dirt roads and empty buildings.
Then the bombs begin to fall, and the explosions are deafening. People are hit, collapsing on the ground, screaming, covered in blood as dust fills the air. It's chaos.
This shocking opening act was just one element of a training exercise at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where US Army Special Operations Command held its annual Capabilities Exercise, or CAPEX, last week.
Open to the public, CAPEX offers a close look at what US Army Special Operations Forces are working on and how they'd respond to a potential real-world conflict. This year's scenario was a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, a growing concern as China modernizes its forces.
The day began with a briefing from Lt. Gen. Jonathan Braga, the USASOC commanding general, on the threat of a Chinese incursion on Taiwan. Braga highlighted 2027, the date Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping has indicated China's military needs to be ready to invade Taiwan.
While there's no guarantee it takes that step, Braga called it "by exponential means, the greatest threat we have." Thinking about that challenge is playing a role in shaping how ARSOF operators train and the capabilities they develop.
American special operators are in a transition period. After decades of counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, they are now shifting, along with the rest of the military, toward great-power competition and potential conflict with a top adversary.
Special forces leaders have said the change requires new skillsets from operators that will affect how they approach supporting conventional forces and irregular warfare. In some respects, it will mean a return to Cold War-era roles and tactics.
Throughout the CAPEX, ARSOF personnel talked at length about what they're prioritizing. Drones and other uncrewed systems are at the forefront.
The initial, simulated drone attack from Chinese forces during the exercise left a few people "wounded," prompting ARSOF to demonstrate their crisis and medical responses. It was tense but orderly — personnel cared for superficial wounds, assessed serious injuries, and took immediate action.
The drill shifted into high gear when ARSOF went on offense with a raid into enemy territory aimed at opening up a temporary air corridor for follow-on forces.
From the top of a building, BI and others watched as an assault team broke from cover, surprising its enemies with rapid M240B machine gun fire. It was loud and sudden.
The American team then took control of the area surrounding a Russian-made SCUD tactical ballistic missile.
Enemy uncrewed aerial systems flew around the area, leading to the use of counter-drone capabilities to detect, track, and ultimately neutralize them. Officials said the counter-UAS system used sensors and deployed interceptor drones to conduct a "command-link takeover" that essentially breaks the connection between drones and their operators.
That system was then used to identify the launch point of the drones. With a loitering munition and a separate drone, the assault team took out the targets.
With the air corridor open, forces from the 75th Ranger Regiment and the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment were then able to enter the area and target a key enemy facility: a hostile command and control center.
Two MH-47 Chinook helicopters, special operations variants of the heavy lift transport aircraft, soared in from the distant tree line.
The arrival of the Chinooks was fast. As they came in, they stirred up dirt and dust, making it hard to see two assault squads scurry down ropes, called a fast-rope insertion, from the helicopters onto the tops of adjacent buildings.
Just as quickly as they arrived, the helicopters flew off. They couldn't linger.
The assault groups cleared the buildings before lining up for an explosive breach of the enemy command building. First-person-view drones were flying around, too, providing critical situational awareness. Once the center's entrance was breached, the groups filed in, neutralizing enemy combatants in close-quarters combat.
The combat exercise also included an enemy counterattack. ARSOF fought with Carl Gustaf Recoilless Rifles that fire 84mm rockets, M240B (7.62) machine guns, M320 grenade launchers, 60MM mortar systems, and Javelin. The counterattack was quickly defeated.
And to top it off, ARSOF fired a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) to target enemy air defenses and continue to keep the air corridor open, making further infiltration and exfiltration an option.
The CAPEX offered visitors a whirlwind look at aspects of a possible fight during a potential Chinese invasion, but it also highlighted other aspects of ARSOF. Its Civil Affairs component, as well as language courses and physical and mental health requirements, were also demonstrated.
Col. Luke VanAntwerp, director of US Army Special Operations Command's Capability Development Integration Directorate, called ARSOF "an incredible bargain" for the US military.
"With a small investment, a small number of people with generational relationships," he said, operators can deter conflict. If it breaks out, though, they want to make sure they can exact a toll on the adversary wherever and however is most effective.
USASOC is made up of around 33,000 people. That's less than 6% of the Army, but it's more than 51% of the US military's special operations forces. They're deployed to more than 70 countries, learn 17 different languages, and focus on deterring conflict, making relationships with partners and allies, and keeping their finger on the pulse of what's happening.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tells Zelensky Ukraine will not regain Crimea, be NATO member
Aug. 18 (UPI) -- On the eve of a highly anticipated White House meeting on ending Russia's war in Ukraine with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and seven other European leaders, President Donald Trump on Sunday night declared that Kyiv would not be regaining Moscow-annexed Crimea, nor would it be allowed to join NATO. Trump is to meet with the leaders Monday after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. In the brief though combative statement to his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said Zelensky "can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight." "Remember how it started," the American leader said. "No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE." Russia began the war on Feb. 24, 2022, when it invaded Ukraine. However, the conflict stretches further back in history. In February 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea, and though swift, there were several deaths, including that of Ukrainian military warrant officer Serhii Kokurin, who was shot by a Russian sniper. Putin has repeatedly opposed the idea of Ukraine joining NATO, and has blamed it for his invasion of Ukraine. The Trump administration has been warm to these conditions in peace negotiations since it returned to office in January, stating that returning Ukraine to its pre-2014 borders was an "realistic objective" and that any negotiated peace would not permit Ukraine to join the voluntary defensive military bloc. NATO countries, however, have reaffirmed Ukraine's future as a member nation and support Kyiv's "irreversible path" to full integration. Zelensky did not respond directly to Trump's message, but in a statement published later Sunday night said he had arrived in Washington for the meeting with Trump. "I am grateful to @POTUS for the invitation. We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably. And peace must be lasting," he said, adding that it must be like previous arrangements, including when Kyiv was "forced to give up CRrimea and part of our East." "Crimea should not have been given up then, just as Ukrainians did not give up Kyiv, Odesa or Kharkiv after 2022," he continued. "I am confident that we will defend Ukraine, effectively guarantee security and that our people will always be grateful to President Trump, everyone in American and every partner and ally for their support and invaluable assistance. "Russia must end this war." Zelensky has said that Ukraine will not relinquish sovereignty of Crimea to Russia. He has also shown an unwillingness to give up on NATO ascension, but has said he is willing to accept security guarantees as Ukraine awaits to become a full member of the defensive alliance. Amid discussions on security guarantees, Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's permanent representative to Vienna-Base International Organizations, took to X on Sunday night to stress that Moscow i seeking the same. "It has equal right to expect that Moscow will also get efficient security guarantees," he said in the statement. "Apparently, [Western governments] haven't yet started to think about it. It is a mistake, which needs to be corrected." Trump on Monday is to meet with Zelensky as well as British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Baumgartner 'paints it red' with re-election fundraiser alongside guest speaker, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan
Aug. 17—The din of 200 protesters outside was imperceptible in the Davenport Grand event room, where hundreds of Republican lawmakers and key supporters gathered for the biggest re-election fundraiser yet for freshman Congressman Michael Baumgartner. The party has had a remarkable year in D.C., where the president and Republican majorities successfully approved the "Big Beautiful Bill," launched a campaign of mass deportations and renewed border security, in line with their promises to their voters last year. And while those policies have proven contentious, driving near-constant protests whenever Baumgartner has made public appearances in Spokane, they also appeared to have animated confidence inside the Davenport Grand on Sunday, with Baumgartner and allies hopeful to overcome the odds and retain power in next year's midterms. Baumgartner has, as recently as last year's campaign, acknowledged the daylight between his brand of the Republican Party and that of President Donald Trump. A product of a Harvard education and student of global affairs seemingly cut from the cloth of Bush-era conservatism, Baumgartner on Sunday demonstrated a closeness with the president and the MAGA movement, symbolized by the marquee presence of guest speaker Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. Ultimately a fundraiser for Baumgartner's re-election campaign, the event was a hodgepodge of a victory lap, a presentation on the sausage-making of federal politics and politicking, a peek at the personal peculiarities of various lawmakers, and a recollection of grievances with the political left. Jordan spoke at length about the 2017 "Russiagate," for instance, arguing Democrats and former President Barack Obama had manipulated and weaponized intelligence suggesting Russia had interfered in the presidential election on Trump's behalf. "Remember the left is crazy," Jordan said. "It's crazy to defund the police, it's crazy to let a man play in women's sports, it's crazy not to have a border. It's crazy to let a Chinese spy balloon fly across the country. ... I bet Baumgartner would have shot it down." The focus of celebration Sunday night was the "Big Beautiful Bill," the landmark 2025 fiscal package approved by a narrow Republican majority in July which the congressman and guest speakers highlighted for its tax cuts. Baumgartner explained the necessity of the reconciliation process to avoid a filibuster and approve that bill, for example. Jordan, a regular on Fox News and notable message-maker for the Republican party, spoke at length about the challenges of political messaging. "Our business is a communication business," Jordan mused Sunday, explaining with some joy the maneuvering necessary in framing a message to the media or questioning a witness in front of Congress and the C-SPAN cameras. "What I try to do with the big hearings is work backwards, what do you want the press saying?" Jordan added. "My favorite is what I call the punch in the face question. You ask the question ... and you don't even care what they say. What's important is the question." Speakers argued Washington state could benefit from the politics on the rise in Washington , D.C. Alluding to the current use of National Guard troops to crack down on violent crime in D.C., former Mayor Nadine Woodward suggested Spokane would also benefit from a military crackdown to take back its streets. The fundraiser dinner, with a minimum requested donation of $75 and top donor categories in the thousands, was called "Paint it Red," an homage to the efforts to maintain and expand the Republican majority. "We're not only going to keep Eastern Washington red; we're going to spread it to the rest of the state," Baumgartner said. Woodward and fellow former Spokane Mayor David Condon helped to highlight the work of conservatives and the need to fund those efforts, but Jordan presented the most dramatic depiction of the stakes. "What's at stake going into 2026?" Jordan said. "Real simple. We don't win." Key figures in the Republican party, whether Elon Musk or the president himself, would be personally targeted if that were to happen, Jordan warned. Baumgartner won't suffer from empty campaign coffers next year. He easily outraised his many competitors in the crowded 2024 election to replace retiring Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, totaling more than $1.3 million in campaign contributions by the end of the election season. More than a year before the 2026 midterms, his re-election campaign has already raised more than $460,000 and spent over $210,000. Eastern Washington Impact Awards Baumgartner also celebrated five regional residents with "Eastern Washington Impact Awards," implicitly, if not explicitly, a celebration of prominent conservatives or symbols of a Republican cause. These include some of the more significant Republican donors in Spokane, such as Cindy Zapotocky, the former chair of the Spokane County GOP and "mentor to conservative candidates" who Baumgartner credited in part with his successful entrance into politics. Also celebrated was Barry Baker, who Baumgartner described as a personal friend and who serves as chairman of Baker Construction and Development and is a member of several area boards, such as the Modern Electric Water Company, which declined to pass along state-funded rebates to its poorest customers in 2024 due to partisan political concerns. The other honorees include anti-progressive activist Sheldon Jackson, the CEO of Selkirk Development, who has recently become a champion for Trump's calls to institutionalize the chronically homeless; Adams County Sheriff Dale Wagner, who is currently being sued by Washington State for allegedly coordinating with federal immigration enforcers in violation of state law; and Lauren Matthew, a West Valley High School student athlete who placed second at the 2025 2A 400-meter dash, losing to a transgender East Valley student athlete, Veronica Garcia. As transgender athletes in school sports have become an increasingly prominent issue in conservative politics, Baumgartner has used Matthew's story to highlight how young women deserve "the chance to compete on a level playing field and have her hard work honored," as he stated in a June speech on the House floor. Baumgartner's recognition of Matthew as "the rightful state champion" inspired perhaps the loudest and longest applause of the awards ceremony.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Who Trump can fire Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. Flood of campaign cash? The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. Obergefell's anniversary A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Race and redistricting Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. When soldiers sue Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prayer for relief Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.' Solve the daily Crossword
