US reviewing its force posture, says Hegseth
The United States is reviewing its force posture, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday told reporters while in Brussels for a NATO meeting with Defense Ministers.
'There are reasons why we have troops in certain places, and we respect and understand that. It is also prudent that we review that force posture in real time alongside our allies and workers to make sure it's right sized,' Hegseth said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
Pentagon watchdog investigates if staffers were asked to delete Hegseth's Signal messages
WASHINGTON: The Pentagon's watchdog is looking into whether any of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's aides were asked to delete Signal messages that may have shared sensitive military information with a reporter, according to two people familiar with the investigation and documents reviewed by The Associated Press. The inspector general's request focuses on how information about the March 15 airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen was shared on the messaging app. This comes as Hegseth is scheduled to testify before Congress next week for the first time since his confirmation hearing. He is likely to face questions under oath not only about his handling of sensitive information but also the wider turmoil at the Pentagon following the departures of several senior aides and an internal investigation over information leaks. Hegseth already has faced questions over the installation of an unsecured Internet line in his office that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols and revelations that he shared details about the military strikes in multiple Signal chats. One of the chats included his wife and brother, while the other included President Donald Trump's top national security officials and inadvertently included The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson had no comment Friday, citing the pending investigation. The inspector general's office would not discuss the details of the investigation but said that when the report is complete, their office will release unclassified portions of it to the public. Besides finding out whether anyone was asked to delete Signal messages, the inspector general also is asking some past and current staffers who were with Hegseth on the day of the strikes who posted the information and who had access to his phone, according to the two people familiar with the investigation and the documents reviewed by the AP. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity. Democratic lawmakers and a small number of Republicans have said that the information Hegseth posted to the Signal chats before the military jets had reached their targets could have put those pilots' lives at risk and that for any lower-ranking members of the military it would have led to their firing. Hegseth has said none of the information was classified. Multiple current and former military officials have said there is no way details with that specificity, especially before a strike took place, would have been OK to share on an unsecured device. 'I said repeatedly, nobody is texting war plans,' Hegseth told Fox News Channel in April after reporting emerged about the chat that included his family members. 'I look at war plans every day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordinations, for media coordinations and other things. That's what I've said from the beginning.' Trump has made clear that Hegseth continues to have his support, saying during a Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia that the defense secretary 'went through a lot' but 'he's doing really well.' Hegseth has limited his public engagements with the press since the Signal controversy. He has yet to hold a Pentagon press briefing, and his spokesman has briefed reporters there only once. The inspector general is investigating Hegseth at the request of the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and the committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Signal is a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked and is not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, one day before the strikes against the Houthis, the Defense Department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of the app. Trump has said his administration targeted the Houthis over their 'unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence and terrorism.' He has noted the disruption Houthi attacks caused through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, key waterways for energy and cargo shipments between Asia and Europe through Egypt's Suez Canal. The Houthi rebels attacked more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones, sinking two vessels and killing four sailors, between November 2023 until January this year. Their leadership described the attacks as aimed at ending the Israeli war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Arab News
9 hours ago
- Arab News
Trains and talks: Turkiye's dual track in Ukraine war
Since the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ukraine's airspace has been closed and its roads have been unsafe for travel. Thus, trains have become the primary means of access. Over the past three years, numerous foreign leaders who have wanted to show their solidarity with Ukraine have taken trains to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky in the capital Kyiv. The 10-hour overnight train journey that takes them from southeastern Poland to Kyiv has come to be known as 'iron diplomacy' and acts a symbol of commitment. Typically, the schedule and exact route of these train journeys are kept confidential and two alternate routes are always prepared — one for the actual train and another for a decoy 'ghost train' to mitigate the risk of an attack. This was a precaution particularly used during then-US President Joe Biden's trip last year. Among the latest officials to embark on this symbolic journey was Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who was accompanied by a delegation of journalists. The Turkish media became the first to be given access to the train, which was heavily guarded, with security personnel both on board and along the route. Typically, during these journeys, the curtains remain closed to minimize visibility for Russian drones. However, the curtains were left open during Fidan's journey — signaling Turkiye's weight in the war and the changing conditions on the ground. This iron diplomacy is more than just taking world leaders from Poland to Ukraine via rail, it is pivotal in maintaining international support for Ukraine. Each journey demonstrates that, despite the war, Ukraine remains connected to the world. It is also an essential platform for fostering diplomacy and maintaining global attention on the war. Iron diplomacy was one of the ways that Ankara aimed to show its solidarity with Ukraine during challenging times. For Turkiye, these diplomatic efforts reflect a broader strategy. Iron diplomacy was one of the ways that Ankara aimed to show its solidarity with Ukraine during challenging times. Dr. Sinem Cengiz Since the start of the war, Ankara has carefully positioned itself as an actor capable of engaging with both Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Among its latest attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the war is the so-called Istanbul process, which aims to bring the two sides together for peace talks. Two rounds of talks have been held under the Istanbul process, in May and June. Last month's meeting, which coincided with a visit by US President Donald Trump to the Gulf, did not result in a ceasefire but did achieve an agreement on a prisoner exchange. Monday's most recent round, chaired by Fidan and Turkiye's security establishment, also failed to secure a ceasefire. However, Fidan noted a 'more optimistic tone' as negotiations resumed. The lack of tangible progress is likely due to the complex nature of the war and lack of sufficient will from the two sides. From the Istanbul process, Turkiye's broader goal is to convene a high-level summit between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Zelensky and Putin — a summit that could be a potential turning point in the war. With the Istanbul process, Turkiye has succeeded in bringing both parties together and it now aims to become the primary actor by creating a diplomatic space beyond the traditional US-Russia framework. Here, Ankara's role defies easy categorization. While some label it a mediator or negotiator, Turkiye more accurately acts as a facilitator. While a mediator, who enters the process to assist parties in search of a solution, is unfamiliar with the system or conflicting situation, the facilitator is part of the system where the wars arose. Turkiye is part of the geopolitical landscape impacted by the war — that is the Black Sea region. This region, historically vital to Turkiye's security and strategic interests, has become even more critical amid the ongoing Western-Russian rivalry. This proximity gives Ankara both the incentive and the leverage to remain engaged. Turkiye's motivation also stems from its desire to expand its influence on the international stage, safeguard regional stability and carve a role for itself in the postwar settlement. The lack of tangible progress is likely due to the complex nature of the war and lack of sufficient will from the two sides. Dr. Sinem Cengiz So far, all efforts to bring Russia and Ukraine to a negotiated peace have failed. However, a glimmer of hope remains for a diplomatic breakthrough that could finally end the war. This is why both the US and the EU have placed their hopes in Turkiye, while Ankara, in turn, is relying heavily on its carefully managed relationships with both Moscow and Kyiv. Although the West has often been uneasy about Turkiye's close ties with Russia, there is now growing recognition — both in Washington and across European capitals — of the value of having a partner that can maintain open lines of communication with the Kremlin. This shift is evident in Trump's cautious approach in order to avoid any problems with Turkiye and the EU's increasing emphasis on Ankara's role in ensuring regional security and acting as a diplomatic bridge between East and West. Despite its vocal support for Ukraine's NATO aspirations and its alignment with Western institutions, Turkiye has successfully compartmentalized its relationship with Russia. Turkiye relies on two main characteristics of a facilitator to achieve success: trust and persuasiveness. Ankara's continued trust-building with both Moscow and Kyiv makes it uniquely suited for the role of potential facilitator, while its style of personal diplomacy plays a significant role in its persuasiveness. If Turkiye can secure a breakthrough via the Istanbul process, it would be a game-changer not only for Ankara but also for Europe and Russia. Such an outcome would also confirm the words of veteran Turkish ambassador Ertugrul Apakan: 'Success might sometimes only be achieved after many failed attempts ... There is no single recipe for successful mediation, just as no conflict is the same as another.'
Arab News
10 hours ago
- Arab News
Britain still has work to do on defense
The British government last week published its long-awaited Strategic Defence Review. Led by former Defence Secretary and NATO secretary general Lord Robertson, the review outlines the major geopolitical challenges facing Britain and offers 62 recommendations to make the UK and its allies more secure. The government accepted all of them. Unsurprisingly, the review identifies Russia as the most acute threat to UK security. However, it also highlights the challenges posed by China, North Korea, and Iran. While many of the findings reaffirm existing concerns, the review makes three particularly important observations and course corrections that deserve attention. First, it shows that the UK is taking seriously the military lessons from Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. After three years of near-nightly missile and drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, the need for robust air defense is clearer than ever. The review pledges £1 billion in new funding for homeland air and missile defense, a long-overdue investment. Another lesson from Ukraine is the critical importance of a strong defense industrial base capable of producing large quantities of munitions and artillery shells. At points during the war, Russia and Ukraine were expending more shells in a week than some European countries manufacture in an entire year. When the time came to supply Ukraine, many European nations lacked sufficient stockpiles. This was a wake-up call — especially for countries that had allowed their defense industries to atrophy. The UK is now taking steps to address this. The review commits £6 billion to build six new munitions and missile factories, including £1.5 billion for an 'always-on' production facility. This means Britain will be able to rapidly surge production in a crisis without starting from scratch. Additionally, the review commits to producing 7,000 long-range strike weapons in the near term, another recognition of evolving battlefield needs. Second, the review firmly reorientates the UK toward European security by adopting a 'NATO First' policy. This means prioritizing Britain's role in the alliance above other regional or global commitments. The timing is appropriate. Since Britain left the EU in 2019, its place in Europe has often been questioned. But following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the UK has reasserted its leadership role in European defense — both within NATO and through bilateral and multilateral cooperation. The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Luke Coffey The explicit commitment to NATO First is a welcome signal to Britain's European partners. It affirms that, even outside the EU, the UK remains a key pillar of the continent's defense architecture. Third, while NATO remains the primary focus, the UK will continue to project power globally. The review confirms plans to produce a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, developed jointly with the US and Australia under the AUKUS partnership. This capability extends Britain's reach far beyond Europe and demonstrates that, in the words of the review, 'NATO First does not mean NATO only.' The document also emphasizes the UK's continued engagement in the Middle East, especially with the Gulf states. Each of the six Gulf monarchies is mentioned by name, and the review reaffirms Britain's long-standing naval presence in Bahrain — an essential strategic foothold in the region. Despite these strengths, the review contains gaps and raises concerns, particularly around funding. Accepting all 62 recommendations is politically bold, but doing so without guaranteed funding is risky. Although the government has pledged to increase defense spending from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027, this falls short of the 3–5 percent levels being discussed by NATO leaders before their summit this month in The Hague. Take, for example, the eight new attack submarines: there is no full funding commitment. The government promises new investment 'in future years,' but offers no guarantees. A so-called Defense Investment Plan will be published this year to detail how these ambitions will be financed. But for now, this ambiguity leaves observers uncertain. Why accept all recommendations if the Treasury hasn't formally agreed to pay for them? Another concern is the lack of whole-of-government coordination. Unlike the previous Conservative-led government, which conducted numerous Strategic Defence and Security Reviews, the Labour government dropped the 'security' component. Past reviews incorporated not only military planning, but also issues such as cybersecurity, border control, counterterrorism, and resilience against pandemics and disinformation. These are vital elements of national security, and omitting them risks undermining Britain's broader preparedness. The new review does warn of threats from cyberattacks, assaults on critical infrastructure, and disinformation campaigns, but these threats are often outside the remit of the armed forces to address. Unless the government embraces a cross-departmental approach and integrates other security agencies into defense planning, it risks creating dangerous blind spots. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the size of the British armed forces. If there is one lesson from Ukraine, it is that large, professional armies still matter. Britain's Army currently stands at just 74,400 soldiers. The review proposes to increase this to 76,000 after the next election, a marginal boost that will also take years to implement. This is insufficient. Moreover, a smaller conventional force shrinks the recruitment pool for the UK's elite special forces, who are typically drawn from the regular military. Despite these challenges, the review is an important first step. Its focus on NATO, industrial resilience, and lessons from Ukraine are encouraging signs that Labour is serious about restoring Britain's defense credibility. But serious work remains. Unless the government fully funds its promises, addresses the absence of cross-government security integration, and expands the armed forces in a meaningful way, the review will fall short of its ambitions. When Labour last came to power in 1997, they published a defense review in 1998 but then failed to produce another during their entire 13 years in office. This time, they should follow the Conservative model and commit to conducting reviews every few years. As this review rightly notes, the world is becoming more dangerous. It is in everyone's interest for Britain to remain a strong, credible force on the global stage. • Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. X: @LukeDCoffey.
