Latest news with #U-2
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pentagon is sending more than 1,100 extra troops to the southern border, report says
The U.S. Department of Defense has approved plans to send 1,115 more active-duty soldiers to the southern border, the latest ramping up of America's military presence in the Southwest under President Donald Trump's administration. The Military Times reports that the units will support engineering, logistics, and construction missions, performing duties ranging from clearing roads to providing medical care. Their deployment will bring the total number of U.S. troops stationed at the border closer to the 10,000 that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth promised earlier this year. There are currently around 8,600 personnel stationed at the border. Approximately 6,100 of that total were moved there by the new administration as part of its attempt to crack down on the flow of undocumented immigrants and contraband into California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. The Pentagon has also sent U-2 surveillance planes, helicopters, two Navy Destroyers, and a brigade of armored Stryker vehicles to help with the mission, which has cost an estimated $525m to date, according to The New York Times. The administration has further moved to redesignate two long strips of land along the border stretching hundreds of miles as military bases, overseen by army commands at Fort Bliss near El Paso, Texas, and Fort Huachuca in Arizona. That has enabled soldiers to detain migrants who trespass on it without violating a prohibition against soldiers engaging in domestic law enforcement, which is otherwise only permitted if the president has invoked the Insurrection Act. A federal judge recently dismissed charges brought against 100 migrants accused of trespassing into New Mexico, ruling that they had not been given sufficient warning that they were entering Pentagon property. Trump and Hegseth have pledged to achieve '100 percent operational control' over the border, and illegal crossings have plunged since Trump took office, although they had already begun to fall sharply in the latter part of Joe Biden's presidency. They have also committed to expanding the U.S. military, and the president's 'big, beautiful bill' that passed the House of Representatives on Thursday includes an additional $150bn commitment to defense spending. Congressional Democrats have criticized the escalation, calling it a waste of resources that risks placing the Armed Forces in needless danger. 'It is difficult to explain the border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness,' said Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Forces Committee, earlier this month.
Gulf Today
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Trump has sent thousands of troops to the Mexico border
Oliver O'Connell On the 2024 campaign trail, Donald Trump pledged to deploy thousands of troops to secure the southern border of the US as part of his strategy to clamp down on illegal immigration. The president's characterisation of the situation at the US-Mexico border as an "invasion" had already been met with criticism, which grew with the idea of the domestic deployment of the military. Democrats, human rights groups, and even some groups within the military itself raised their concerns. Nevertheless, after his inauguration, troops were deployed to the border within a week, with more following along with U-2 spy planes, Stryker combat vehicles, drones, helicopters, and even two Navy destroyers off the west coast and in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico off Texas. Approximately 8,600 active duty troops are now at the US-Mexico border, up from about 2,500 at the end of the Biden administration. Border crossings had fallen sharply in the latter part of Joe Biden's presidency but plunged as Trump took office. Some 8,000 people were arrested after crossing the border illegally this April, the most recent data shows. The corresponding figure for a year earlier in April 2024 was 128,000. In the vernacular of the Trump administration: "Promises made, promises kept." But what exactly are the troops at the border doing, and is their presence the key factor in the reduction of border crossings? Furthermore, how much does this cost, and what is the overall impact on military readiness? Should they be doing something else somewhere else? To date, this has all cost around $525 million, according to a figure from the Department of Defense reported in The New York Times. While the deployments continue to grow, so does the military's authority over territory along the border. The Pentagon has created two narrow strips of land, effectively turning them into parts of nearby US military bases as a buffer zone with Mexico. They are overseen by Army commands at Fort Bliss, near El Paso, Texas, and Fort Huachuca in Arizona. Any migrants entering these areas are considered to be trespassing on military land and can be temporarily detained by US troops until Border Patrol agents arrive. However, this has faced some legal challenges regarding whether migrants are aware they are trespassing in a restricted area, and there is skepticism about whether many such incidents will occur. Critics also argue Trump is carrying out an end run around the longstanding Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from domestic law enforcement. More than anything, the military's presence seems to provide a deterrent effect to people smugglers and cartels, and the troops won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The border mission is expected to last for years to address cyclical and seasonal increases in migration, Gen. Gregory Guillot, the head of the military's Northern Command, told Congress. On a day-to-day basis, troops support local law enforcement agencies, patrolling on foot, by helicopter, and in combat vehicles in a highly visible surveillance capacity that also underlines their deterrence capabilities. The Stryker combat vehicles being used are 25 tons, seat 11, and have eight wheels, reaching speeds of 60 mph. They are often positioned on a strategic overlook where smugglers and cartel members can see them, and vice versa, as they have optical sights that can spot individuals or groups up to six miles away. To answer the question of what they would otherwise be doing if not deployed at the border, the Times notes that a Stryker battalion in Texas was scheduled for training at Fort Irwin in California and would then deploy to South Korea. Those assignments have been postponed. Other battalions would similarly be training for deployment in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or other parts of the Indo-Pacific arena. On Capitol Hill, this has raised questions as to whether this is the best use of the military. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has been particularly vocal in his opposition. As the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, he said on May 8: "It is difficult to explain the border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness."
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump has sent thousands of troops to the Mexico border. But is it the best use of the US military?
On the 2024 campaign trail, Donald Trump pledged to deploy thousands of troops to secure the southern border of the U.S. as part of his strategy to clamp down on illegal immigration. The president's characterization of the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border as an 'invasion' had already been met with criticism, which grew with the idea of the domestic deployment of the military. Democrats, human rights groups, and even some groups within the military itself raised their concerns. Nevertheless, after his inauguration, troops were deployed to the border within a week, with more following along with U-2 spy planes, Stryker combat vehicles, drones, helicopters, and even two Navy destroyers off the west coast and in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico off Texas. Approximately 8,600 active duty troops are now at the U.S.-Mexico border, up from about 2,500 at the end of the Biden administration. Border crossings had fallen sharply in the latter part of Joe Biden's presidency but plunged as Trump took office. Some 8,000 people were arrested after crossing the border illegally this April, the most recent data shows. The corresponding figure for a year earlier in April 2024 was 128,000. In the vernacular of the Trump administration: 'Promises made, promises kept.' But what exactly are the troops at the border doing, and is their presence the key factor in the reduction of border crossings? Furthermore, how much does this cost, and what is the overall impact on military readiness? Should they be doing something else somewhere else? To date, this has all cost around $525 million, according to a figure from the Department of Defense reported in The New York Times. While the deployments continue to grow, so does the military's authority over territory along the border. The Pentagon has created two narrow strips of land, effectively turning them into parts of nearby U.S. military bases as a buffer zone with Mexico. They are overseen by Army commands at Fort Bliss, near El Paso, Texas, and Fort Huachuca in Arizona Any migrants entering these areas are considered to be trespassing on military land and can be temporarily detained by U.S. troops until Border Patrol agents arrive. However, this has faced some legal challenges regarding whether migrants are aware they are trespassing in a restricted area, and there is skepticism about whether many such incidents will occur. Critics also argue Trump is carrying out an end run around the longstanding Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from domestic law enforcement. More than anything, the military's presence seems to provide a deterrent effect to people smugglers and cartels, and the troops won't be going anywhere anytime soon. The border mission is expected to last for years to address cyclical and seasonal increases in migration, Gen. Gregory Guillot, the head of the military's Northern Command, told Congress. On a day-to-day basis, troops support local law enforcement agencies, patrolling on foot, by helicopter, and in combat vehicles in a highly visible surveillance capacity that also underlines their deterrence capabilities. The Stryker combat vehicles being used are 25 tons, seat 11, and have eight wheels, reaching speeds of 60 mph. They are often positioned on a strategic overlook where smugglers and cartel members can see them, and vice versa, as they have optical sights that can spot individuals or groups up to six miles away. To answer the question of what they would otherwise be doing if not deployed at the border, the Times notes that a Stryker battalion in Texas was scheduled for training at Fort Irwin in California and would then deploy to South Korea. Those assignments have been postponed. Other battalions would similarly be training for deployment in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or other parts of the Indo-Pacific arena. On Capitol Hill, this has raised questions as to whether this is the best use of the military. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has been particularly vocal in his opposition. As the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, he said on May 8: 'It is difficult to explain the border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness.' His examples were a battalion of Marines that was placing miles of barbed wire across the California mountains; Navy aircrews flying the most advanced submarine hunting planes in the world across the desert; and the two Navy destroyers currently looking out for migrants in boats. While those sound like perhaps egregious misuses of military time and hardware, the Times spoke with some troops and their commanding officers at the border who said that serving in one of the president's highest priority missions gave them purpose. They also argued that they are using skills in the real world rather than in training exercises, as the patrols, planning, mission rehearsals, and surveillance flights they undertake are against actual criminal gangs smuggling people and real Mexican drug cartels. One commander of a Stryker brigade deployed along the border told the Times that military readiness levels, which are measured by Army standards such as equipment maintenance, were up to 94 percent in April, from 78 percent in December in his unit. Other commanders argue that the on-the-ground experience is driving re-enlistments among younger soldiers who did not serve in combat overseas, like their older counterparts who served in Afghanistan. 'This is their mission for their generation, and they're embracing it,' Maj. Gen. Scott Naumann, the head of the Army's 10th Mountain Division, told the Times. Naumann moved his headquarters staff to Fort Huachuca in February and oversees Joint Task Force-Southern Border, as it is known. Nevertheless, concerns about the domestic deployment of troops remain, and Pentagon leaders have traditionally shied away from deployment at the border, fearing it could pull the military into domestic politics. Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University and an expert on civil-military relations, noted that while there are lots of examples of the military being used domestically, however — except for things like disaster relief — they typicaly 'come away from those instances saying, 'Yeah, we don't want to do that again.'' 'The military prefers to orient itself towards foreign adversaries,' Feaver said. 'It prefers to have other branches of the government, to include other security sectors like police, border police, homeland security, who train for and are optimized for domestic missions — have them do it.' If the military's border role remains predominantly deterrence and working in support of civilian law enforcement, then concerns over longer-term cost and the impact on military readiness may remain as concerns. However, if troop numbers climb and mission creep becomes a factor, costs will also mount, and readiness — the physical ability to redeploy troops that would otherwise be on base in the U.S. or stationed at U.S. facilities overseas, ready to act — may change from being a concern to a real-world challenge.
Boston Globe
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
How India and Pakistan might move forward — and away from nuclear dangers
Fortunately, leaders on both sides understand that full-scale nuclear war would bring horrifying catastrophe to their countries. While both edged toward the brink, surely neither intended to step over. Advertisement But the many crises of the nuclear age make clear that unexpected events, not planned by either leader, can provoke further escalation. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, then-president John F. Kennedy interpreted the Soviet shootdown of an American U-2 over Cuba as a deliberate Soviet decision to escalate. In fact, Soviet troops shot down the plane against the Soviet leader's direct orders, and he didn't know it had happened until almost a day later. Advertisement Had the India-Pakistan exchange escalated to full-scale war, multiple paths could lead to the use of nuclear arms, from 'tactical' weapons used to stop a catastrophic military defeat (long Pakistan's stated plan) to 'use them or lose them' pressures if short-range nuclear weapons moved toward the front were about to be overrun. Any such use would carry immense dangers of escalating to all-out nuclear war, with its horrifying consequences. The ceasefire ends those risks for the moment. But these countries and the world are still saddled with the tensions that caused the conflict. India and Pakistan are burdened with disputed borders, terrorist groups in both countries with incentives to provoke conflict, longstanding religious and political tensions, disagreements over management of crucial rivers that flow from India into Pakistan, ongoing arms buildups, lack of communication, and more. The potential for another spark in this tinderbox is ever-present. Hence, as politically difficult as it may be for both prime minister Narendra Modi's right-wing Hindu nationalist government in New Delhi and the uneasy military-civil coalition in Islamabad, India and Pakistan need to use this conflict to break from the past and move toward a more peaceful path benefiting all the peoples of South Asia. Rubio announced that the sides had agreed to 'start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site.' Advertisement Continuing the confusing torrent of conflicting statements that has characterized this conflict, the Indian government quickly denied this, saying there was Even if fundamental issues such as the status of Kashmir cannot be resolved, accords on nonmilitary issues such as water, the environment, people-to-people exchanges, and expanded trade should be possible. On the military side, accords to create rules of the road along the border (perhaps similar to the US-Russian 'Dangerous Military Activities' accord), to avoid incidents at sea, to beef up existing crisis communication channels, and to establish regular government-to-government and military-to-military communications could make a real difference. The peoples of South Asia — and the world — deserve to live with less danger of conflicts and fear of the potential use of nuclear weapons.
Sky News
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
'My dad was shot down over the Soviet Union' - what happens when a US spy plane gets caught?
"My dad was shot down over the Soviet Union," Gary says. "As a kid I thought it was normal, everybody's dad goes through this." In the thick of the Cold War an American spy plane flew over Russian missile sites, taking pictures for the CIA. The US thought that at 70,000 feet their U-2 aircraft was beyond the reach of Soviet air defences. They were wrong. What resulted from the downing of the U-2 plane and the capture of pilot Francis Gary Powers was an international incident that could have led to nuclear war. Sixty-five years later, with conflicts raging in Ukraine, Gaza and elsewhere, militaries around the world still gather intelligence in a game of espionage cat-and-mouse. Could something similar happen again? What happened on 1 May, 1960? Wanting to know what missile capabilities the Soviets had, President Dwight D Eisenhower authorised a series of flights by U-2 spy planes over modern-day Russia. "As the United States saw it, although they knew that the overflight of Soviet territory was against international law, they regarded their activity as taking a peek behind the Iron Curtain in order to get an idea of Soviet preparedness," says Sean Rehling, a curator at the Imperial War Museum in Duxford. Powers was flying near Sverdlovsk when his U-2 aircraft was brought down by a Soviet missile. He was able to parachute to safety, but was captured. The Americans, not knowing yet that Powers was still alive, claimed that a weather research aircraft had strayed into Soviet territory. So when Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev announced that a US pilot had been captured they were caught in a lie. Powers was put on a public show trial and sentenced to prison, but was released in 1962 in exchange for Soviet spy, Rudolf Abel. Rehling says the U-2 incident ratcheted up tensions between the US and the USSR, and perhaps emboldened Khrushchev to pursue a bold, risky diplomacy that led to the crisis point when Soviet missiles were deployed to Cuba. 'We see the culmination of this when, almost two half years later in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union appeared to be adopting a much more confrontational attitude to the United States. 'The world became step by step this gradually more dangerous place' 'I wanted to find out the truth' "My father was very controversial when he returned home," his son Gary, 59, tells Sky News. "Was he a hero, was he a traitor? Did he defect?" Released on a bridge in Berlin one cold, foggy morning, Powers was taken back to the US where he was questioned first by the CIA, and then by a Senate committee. He was cleared by both. Learning about what happened growing up, Gary pestered his dad for details of the incident. "How high were you flying on 1 May?," he would ask. "Gary, I can't tell you that," his father would reply. Powers died in 1977, aged 47. Despite being officially cleared of any wrongdoing, he's never quite able to shake the questions about what happened. His son never stopped wondering about the U-2 incident. "I wanted to find out the truth of what he went through," Gary says. He founded The Cold War Museum in Virginia in 1996 and regularly runs tours about espionage history, which of course includes the U-2 incident involving his father. Is the U-2 incident still relevant in 2025? It may be more than six decades since 1 May, 1960, but the lessons of the U-2 incident still resonate today. NATO fighter jets are regularly scrambled to respond to Russian spy planes approaching the alliance's borders, while Western surveillance planes operate over the Black Sea, gathering intelligence for Ukraine. 'Even though Power's aircraft was shot down 65 years ago, the world in which we live is a legacy of the Cold War,' Rehling says. 'Today, even though nations might not necessarily know who a potential adversary or enemy may be, gathering intelligence is just as important as it was during the Cold War.' Gary argues that the U-2 incident is still relevant, mirrored in the geopolitical jostling between NATO, the US, Russia and China. 'It's a cat-and-mouse game, trying to find out what the other side is doing and not getting caught doing it.'
