The few and the proud just got a bit more debonaire.

For the first time since its authorization for wear in the 1800s, both male and female Marines whose rank or officer status qualifies them can wear one of the Corps’ rarest and most pricey dress accessories: the boat cloak.

That’s according to a Marine Administrative message published this month. According to the message, female officers and staff noncommissioned officers are now authorized to wear “either the boatcloak or the cape” with the evening and dress and blue dress Alpha and Bravo uniforms.

This decision, along with a raft of other tweaks to uniform policy, was made personally by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith at a meeting of the Marine Corps Uniform Board in October, according to the message.

The prospect of a unisex boat cloak was raised last year as one of a number of proposals presented to rank-and-file Marines in a survey to gauge their interest in changes — the first such survey since 2019, and the first conducted under Smith’s tenure.

At the time, Uniform Board Program Manager Mary Boyt told Marine Corps Times that any change would keep the boat cloak “an optional, special-order item,” but give more Marines the opportunity to wear it.

“Very few people actually buy the boat cloak, because it’s very expensive,” Boyt said at the time, adding that the item enjoys a “niche popularity, especially near Washington, D.C.

“So, this would just be giving the female Marines the opportunity to wear the same cloak that the males are wearing with their standing collar.”

However, the new authorization does not include one change Boyt predicted: there’s no language in the MarAdmin that would phase out the shorter dress cape that had been previously authorized for women. Thus, both options remain available to female Marines indefinitely.

A Marine Corps spokesman, Maj. Hector Infante, told Military Times Wednesday that the boat cloak proposal “was formally raised through official requests to the Marine Corps Uniform Board, reflecting interest and demand from the operating forces.”

The Uniform Board does not typically release data on voting or how many requests they receive about specific uniform matters.

Interest in broadening wear authorization for the boat cloak is notable because of how rarely seen the item is. Military Reddit forums and social media pages track sightings of the scarlet-lined cloak “in the wild.”

At a recent Marine Corps birthday ball attended by this reporter, a staff noncommissioned officer sporting the cloak was met with offers of free drinks.

The heavy, knee-length cloak, purported to weigh around seven pounds, is a vestige of history that has persisted even as other accessories have been retired. This year, Business Insider featured the story of a Marine Corps boat cloak that had been handed down through generations for almost 80 years.

Other items have not fared as well. The two-foot “swagger stick,” for example, approved as a dress item in the early 1900s and sported perhaps most famously by Army. Gen. George S. Patton, was formally discouraged by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Shoup in an address to staff in 1960.

“In general I feel that a clean, neat, well-fitted uniform with the Marine Corps emblem is tops. There is no need for gimmicks and gadgets,” he said. He did, however, stop short of banning or retiring the item.

“If you feel the need of it, carry it,” he said, according to a transcript kept by Marine Corps University.

Handmade to order in dark blue broadcloth and scarlet wool, boat cloaks cost $850 new from The Marine Shop, edging out the ceremonial officer’s sword with accessories at around $770 for priciest uniform accessory. The Uniform Board did not consider ongoing demand for the item in its process, officials said.

“The Marine Corps Uniform Board does not track the sale or purchase of individual uniform items,” Infante said. “Sales and purchasing data are managed through supply and retail systems outside the Board’s scope.”

Other newly authorized uniform changes rolled out this month include permission for female Marines to wear black suede, cloth or leather pumps with the evening dress uniform, in addition to the standard patent leather; addition of the tan tanker jacket to the seabag of new Marines in addition to the All-Weather Coat; and updates to improve and simplify placement of medals and ribbons on the uniform.

Additional guidance on tanker jacket fielding is forthcoming, officials said.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered an overhaul of the military’s Chaplain Corps in a Tuesday video message, saying he intends to “make the Chaplain Corps great again,” by restoring its focus on religious ministry.

“In an atmosphere of political correctness and secular humanism, chaplains have been minimized, viewed by many as therapists instead of ministers,” he said in the video, since posted on social media.

Hegseth railed against what he described as “new age notions” in the Army Spiritual Fitness Guide, saying, “it mentions God one time — that’s it. It mentions feelings eleven times. It even mentions playfulness — whatever that is — nine times.” In the video, Hegseth gestured air quotes when he spoke the word, “feelings.”

He said the guide “alienates” religious soldiers “by pushing secular humanism.” As a result, Hegseth said the Army will be “tossing it,” and said that he had a directive that would be signed that day to scrap the guide at once.

The Army’s guide was released in August 2025, and frames spiritual fitness as an important part of force readiness. III Corps pioneered a monthslong study to develop the 112-page document, according to previous reporting by Military Times.

“We are aggressively moving forward with Secretary Hegseth’s intent to discontinue the Army Spiritual Fitness Guide,” Army spokesperson Tony McCormick said on Wednesday.

Hegseth said other new changes include “simplifying the faith and belief coding system,” which he said has “ballooned to over two hundred overly complex faith and belief codes.”

More revisions are forthcoming, he emphasized.

“There will be a top-down cultural shift, putting spiritual wellbeing on the same footing as mental and physical health, as a first step toward creating a supportive environment for our warriors and their souls,” he said.

In response to queries about if the filmed statement constituted formal policy and what changes, if any, had been directed regarding the roles and responsibilities of military chaplains, the Pentagon’s press duty officer on Wednesday said the Pentagon had nothing to add outside of the video.

The Senate on Wednesday passed a major policy bill that authorizes the Defense Department to spend $900.6 billion in fiscal 2026.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which the House passed Dec. 10, will now head to President Donald Trump, who has pledged to sign it. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill 77-20.

The bill was praised by the top two senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and ranking Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island, who said it makes critical investments to strengthen the U.S. military.

“The bill sets us on a path to modernize our defense capabilities and augment our drone manufacturing, shipbuilding efforts, and the development of innovative low-cost weapons,” Wicker said.

The discretionary defense spending authorized in the bill would be $8 billion more than the Pentagon requested earlier this year, and fully fund major programs such as the Golden Dome for America missile defense shield and the F-47 advanced fighter, as well as providing the Navy funds to build more submarines and destroyers.

Wicker also lauded the bill’s provisions that seek to improve the Pentagon’s budget and acquisition processes. An executive summary of the bill said it adopted key provisions from Wicker’s Fostering Reform and Government Efficiency in Defense, or FORGED, Act that seeks to speed up development and production of new weapons by prioritizing commercial acquisition, slashing red tape and expanding the industrial base.

“In this NDAA, my colleagues and I have prioritized the structural rebuilding of the arsenal of democracy and returning the department to its warfighting mission,” Wicker said. “Crucially, it also contains the most sweeping upgrades to the Pentagon’s business practices in 60 years — a watershed moment for our military.”

The bill also seeks to reform the Joint Requirements Oversight Council by cutting “bureaucratic validation of service requirements,” the executive summary said, and instead focusing on fixing joint operational problems.

The NDAA authorizes funds to give troops a 3.8% pay raise, and would create a senior-level Defense Property Management Office to “fix unacceptable outcomes for military families during the moving process,” Wicker and Reed said.

“We face significant national security challenges, but this NDAA makes meaningful progress toward meeting them,” Reed said. “It enhances military readiness, supports service members and their families, modernizes combat platforms, and invests in critical technologies.”

The NDAA also includes a provision that would withhold 25% of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s travel budget until he sends congressional committees overseeing the military “unedited video of strikes conducted against designated terrorist organizations” in the Caribbean region. This is intended to push Hegseth to release more information on controversial strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats from Venezuela.

The bill would bar the Pentagon from cutting the U.S. military’s force posture in Europe or giving up the United States’ role in filling the Supreme Allied Commander-Europe position that commands NATO, until the secretary of defense assesses how those changes would affect U.S. and NATO interests and certifies to Congress that it would be in the national interest. It also would authorize a $200 million increase for U.S. European Command security assistance.

The NDAA contains provisions that seek to bolster allied and friendly nations against Russian aggression. It would establish a Baltic Security Initiative and authorize $175 million to “strengthen front-line deterrence against Russian aggression,” the executive summary said. It would also extend the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through 2028 and authorize $400 million in funding for 2026 and 2027. And it requires the secretary of defense to notify Congress if any decision is made to modify, restrict or terminate military intelligence, imagery intelligence or other such support to Ukraine.

It also fully funds the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, strengthens activities related to the AUKUS agreement between the U.S., U.K. and Australia and provides new authorities for cooperating with Taiwan.

The bill would also prohibit the Air Force from cutting its fleet of A-10 Warthog attack planes below 103 in 2026, and extend a prohibition on the Air Force retiring RQ-4 Global Hawk drones to 2030. And it requires the Air Force to keep at least 90 days’ worth of spare parts for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by the end of September 2028.

The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier docked in its homeport of Naval Base Kitsap in Bremerton, Washington, on Tuesday for what is scheduled to be its final visit there.

The world’s oldest aircraft carrier, commissioned in 1975 with a service lifespan of 50 years, is set to return to Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, in 2026 and be decommissioned.

The Nimitz returned from a nine-month deployment to the U.S. 3rd, 5th and 7th Fleets that began March 21 when it set sail from Kitsap.

“We have traveled more than two-thirds of this planet during this nine-month deployment, and I cannot overstate the positive impact Nimitz Strike Group has made as part of our mission to maintain peace through strength by sustaining credible deterrence alongside our allies and partners,” said Rear Adm. Fred Goldhammer, commander of Carrier Strike Group 11, according to a release.

During its final deployment, the Nimitz spent three months in the Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility and almost four months in U.S. Central Command.

In the U.S. 5th Fleet, the carrier helped set conditions that enabled the Iran-Israel ceasefire and helped strike Islamic State targets in Somalia, according to the release.

The Nimitz also supported operations in the U.S. 7th Fleet, providing deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and taking part in the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition.

Sailors aboard the Nimitz completed over 8,500 sorties, 17,000 flight hours, 50 replenishments-at-sea and sailed over 82,000 nautical miles combined, the release said.

USS Nimitz heading to Middle East, defense official says

Built after the Navy’s first nuclear-powered carrier, the USS Enterprise, the Nimitz became the flagship vessel of the ten Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers.

The storied vessel was named after Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, who served as commander in chief of U.S. Pacific Fleet during World War II.

The Nimitz first deployed July 7, 1976, to the Mediterranean, and then two years later, deployed to the Indian Ocean after Iran took 52 U.S. hostages in the wake of an attack on the U.S. embassy in Tehran, Iran.

The warship participated in Operation Evening Light, which sought to rescue those hostages, but the efforts were unsuccessful after the mission was called off due to an insufficient number of helicopters to complete it.

The 52 hostages were eventually released and returned to the U.S.

The Nimitz also supported Operation Desert Storm in the Arabian Gulf in 1991 and Operation Southern Watch in 1993 and 1997.

The carrier was stationed at its homeport of Naval Station Norfolk for 12 years until it relocated to Naval Base Kitsap in 1987.

It relocated again in 2001 to Naval Air Station North Island in San Diego, California, from which it deployed in 2005 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the war on terrorism.

The Nimitz relocated in 2012 to a new homeport in Everett, Washington, deploying a year later in 2013 to support Operation Enduring Freedom.

The carrier also famously fielded the Navy F-35 Lightning’s first carrier landing at sea.

When the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020, the Nimitz began a deployment that would end up becoming the longest since the Vietnam War, clocking in at 341 days.

Adm. Daryl Caudle assumed the U.S. Navy’s highest post in August as the service’s 34th chief of naval operations.

Caudle subsequently outlined his priorities as CNO in his “Foundry, Fleet, Fight” initiative, one that, factoring in personnel, platforms and industry, aims to ensure maritime supremacy amid an era of rapidly evolving strategic environments and fierce competition by near-peer nations like China and Russia.

At the core of that relentless push are sailors, who in recent years have grappled with, among various challenges, new missions and readiness shortfalls while simultaneously being tasked with mastering tech developments that stretch human-machine integration far beyond what was once thought possible.

Caudle, who has continually stated that a sailor-first approach anchors his entire suite of decision-making, sat down with Military Times this week to discuss the myriad complexities of today’s naval warfare.

While addressing topics ranging from missions in the U.S. Southern Command area of operations to sailor quality of life and unmanned developments, Caudle expanded upon the principles of the “Foundry, Fleet, Fight” endeavor and what must transpire for the Navy to succeed in 2026 and beyond.

Watch the full interview here.

The life of movie actor Jimmy Stewart is inching closer to the big screen.

Set to debut in theaters Nov. 6, 2026, Burns & Co. Entertainment released the first look at KJ Apa (“Riverdale”) as the World War II veteran and famed “It’s a Wonderful Life” star, Jimmy Stewart.

The teaser trailer, which dropped on Dec. 17, opens with Apa performing Stewart’s famed monologue as forlorn George Bailey reaching his breaking point while sitting at Martini’s bar in the fictional town of Bedford Falls.

The trailer then spans to Apa, surrounded by flashing camera lights as the voice of Louis B. Mayer, played by Jason Alexander (“Seinfeld”), tells Apa “You are a star. And America needs stars right now.”

The movie will chronicle Stewart’s rise in Hollywood — including his Academy Award-winning performance in “The Philadelphia Story” — before his shock enlistment in the U.S. Army Air Corps in March 1941, shortly before the branch became the U.S. Army Air Forces.

For his part, Stewart’s fight began long before he entered the war. The 6-foot-3-inch Stewart weighed only 138 pounds, and the Army initially turned him down — something that the trailer hints at.

According to historian Richard L. Hayes, Stewart began eating “spaghetti twice a day, supplemented with steaks and milkshakes.” At a second physical in March 1941, he still had not gained enough weight to be eligible but he talked the Army doctors into adding an ounce or two so he could qualify, then ran outside shouting to fellow actor Burgess Meredith, ‘I’m in! I’m in!’”

Not satisfied to simply sit stateside selling war bonds, Stewart fought for active duty and subsequently served as a combat pilot, flying 20 missions in Europe in a B-24 Liberator.

That experience would shape his life and his acting forevermore. Less than a year after his return home, Stewart famously starred in Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life,” delivering the now iconic, tear-soaked monologue: “God, God, dear Father in Heaven. I’m not a praying man, but if you’re up there and you can hear me, show me the way. I’m at the end of my rope. I … show me the way, oh God.”

The moment had been spontaneous. When director Frank Capra tried to reshoot, Stewart looked at the director and said, “Frank, I can’t do that again. Don’t ask me.”

Stewart’s tears were not the product of acting — as talented as Stewart was — but that of a buried reservoir of emotions tied directly to his wartime experiences.

“Jimmy Stewart was an American hero,” Apa said in a Wednesday statement.

“He was among a certain breed of men who understood the true meaning of sacrifice by fighting for our freedom. He was also among the greatest actors of all time. … His story portrays the absolute best of what one human has to offer his country.”

Starring with Apa is Max Casella (“Boardwalk Empire”) as Frank Capra and Jen Lilley (“General Hospital”) as Gloria Stewart, Jimmy Stewart’s wife. Aaron Burns is both directing and producing the film, while Stewart’s daughter, Kelly Stewart-Harcourt, is executive producer.

“I am thrilled and grateful that Burns & Co. is making the film, ‘Jimmy,’ about my father, Jimmy Stewart. It highlights the part of Dad’s life of which he was most proud: his military service,” said Stewart-Harcourt.

“I have long thought that it would be hard to find an actor who could bring my father to life without doing an extended Jimmy Stewart impersonation. But that actor has been found and his name is KJ Apa,” she said.

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam — Vietnam has revved up its land reclamation efforts in the South China Sea this year, beginning construction on eight previously untouched features in the Spratly Islands.

The hotly contested archipelago has been turned from a scattering of low-lying reefs and partially submerged rocks into weaponized artificial islands mainly by China and Vietnam.

Analysts say Hanoi’s island-building is a defensive response to Beijing’s militarization of its South China Sea outposts including those in the Spratly Islands, since 2013.

The South China Sea is a resource-rich waterway and busy shipping lane that trillions of dollars of trade passes through yearly. Six countries have overlapping claims in the sea that stretches about 1.4 million square miles but Beijing has the biggest presence and claims the majority of the territory.

Vietnam began its island building push in 2021. With just 11 islands that year, now all 21 Vietnamese-occupied rocks and low-tide elevations in the Spratlys have been expanded to include artificial land. Vietnam had created about 70% as much artificial land in the Spratlys as China had as of March, the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative said in an August report.

This “all but ensures that Vietnam will match – and likely surpass – the scale of Beijing’s island-building,” the report said.

Hanoi’s foreign press office did not respond to requests for comment.

Alexander Vuving, professor at Honolulu’s Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies, told Defense News the South China Sea is an “existential issue” for Vietnam – crucial to the country’s economy, security, and national identity.

“Vietnam right now is one of the major exporting nations in the world and 90% of Vietnam’s foreign trade exports to the world go through the South China Sea,” Vuving said.

“The South China Sea is also important to Vietnam securitywise,” he added. “The French came into Vietnam from the sea, and the Americans also came to Vietnam from the sea … now you have the Chinese threat.”

Weaponized islands

AMTI satellite imagery taken this year shows that Vietnam is turning five of its claimed features that previously housed only small concrete pillbox structures into military outposts.

These newly fortified reefs – Alison Reef, Collins Reef, East Reef, Landsdowne Reef, and Petleys Reef – now have munitions storage depots in the form of six containers surrounded and separated by thick walls. Militarization of Vietnam’s outposts also includes ports, harbors, and an 8,000-foot runway on Barque Canada Reef.

AMTI Director Gregory Poling said Hanoi nearing Beijing’s level of land reclamation matters symbolically but Vietnam will remain overpowered at sea.

“None of this means that Vietnam is actually capable of projecting power in the same way that China can. Nor does it mean that Vietnam is being as aggressive or as environmentally destructive as China is,” Poling said.

“Vietnam has never, as far as anybody knows, used forces deployed on these islands for aggression toward the other claimants, whereas China does so on a daily basis,” he said.

China’s South China Sea actions include using its maritime militia and coast guard to ram, swarm, and use powerful water cannons on foreign ships and to patrol inside other nations’ exclusive economic zones.

Beijing’s three largest artificial islands in the Spratly archipelago – Mischief Reef, Subi Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef – have antiship and antiaircraft missile systems, laser and jamming equipment, underground storage tunnels, and fighter jets.

Poling said Hanoi will likely aim to match Beijing’s ability to forward deploy its coast guard and aircraft to the islands and to improve its intelligence collection.

Construction is continuing on Vietnam’s artificial islands. A Straits Times report described nonstop cranking of towering cranes on South Reef. According to local media reports, soldiers stationed on South Reef are being encouraged to raise chickens and grow vegetables.

Nguyen The Phuong, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of New South Wales focusing on Vietnam’s military, said Hanoi is taking a defensive stance.

“The ultimate goal is to be able to defend the islands under Vietnam’s jurisdiction better and to inflict some kind of maximum damage to China if the worst-case scenario happens,” Phuong said from Ho Chi Minh City.

“Vietnam doesn’t want to be embroiled in that kind of conflict but we have to be prepared,” he said.

Geopolitical implications

Hanoi has kept a tight lid on its island-building drive — wary of provoking its powerful neighbor or being seen as enacting the same kind of “bad” behavior as Beijing, according to Ray Powell, director of the maritime transparency initiative SeaLight at the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation at Stanford University.

Powell, who was serving as U.S. air attaché to Vietnam when China kicked off its island-building in 2013, said the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi tried to discourage Vietnam from following China’s lead.

“We wanted to have this principled position that any changing of the [South China Sea] status quo was bad,” Powell said. He said he believes the U.S. stance has likely shifted.

“We, the United States, weren’t able to stop the madness when China did it and so now we’re going to go and tell Vietnam not to do it?” he asked.

Washington may even support the effort and see Vietnam’s land reclamation as making it “harder for China to take things by force at some point in the future,” he said.

The U.S. Embassy in Hanoi did not respond to requests for comment.

Although Vietnam’s navy wanted to start its island-building push as early as 2013, it took until 2021 to gather funds, internal consensus, and dredging technology, Phuong said.

Since then, Beijing’s response has been “low profile,” he added.

The Vietnamese sometimes “see Chinese vessels going around the construction site, or sometimes Chinese vessels blocked the movement of vessels transporting” goods for construction, Phuong said.

Van Pham, the Hanoi-based founder of the nonprofit South China Sea Chronicle Initiative, said Chinese vessels patrolling near Vietnamese outposts rarely appear in local media.

“Several years ago, Vietnam’s state media reported an incident in which a Vietnamese navy supply ship was obstructed by a Chinese vessel en route to a feature in the Spratly Islands. Such reports are rare given Vietnam’s quiet diplomacy; additional incidents may occur without public disclosure,” she wrote.

Philippine focus, Hanoi’s timing

Analysts see Beijing’s focus on the Philippines as an opportunity for Vietnam to expand its land.

Hanoi “also sort of had to wait for the right moment,” Powell said, adding that the current Chinese focus on the Philippines and its alliance with the United States “has given them that moment.”

“Everything the Philippines does is treated like the Philippines is just a sock puppet and that the Americans are pulling the strings,” Poling said.

However, he said it is likely that Chinese authorities have realized that as Vietnamese island building nears completion “they can’t just pretend it’s not happening.”

Vuving said he expects Vietnam’s island building is seen by most countries as a welcome counterweight to Beijing.

“China now has four big runways complete with deep-sea harbors and big artificial islands that can serve as dual-use military bases in the middle of the South China Sea. They can literally turn the South China Sea – a big sea – into a choke point,” he said.

“But Vietnam is now also building a lot of new ground in the middle of the sea and maybe also turning some of their artificial islands into runways and deep-sea harbors so it potentially can also correct the imbalance,” he said.

President Donald Trump is traveling to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Wednesday for a dignified transfer for the two Iowa National Guard members killed in an attack in the Syrian desert that is testing the rapprochement between Washington and Damascus.

The two Guardsmen killed in the attack on Saturday were Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown, according to the U.S. Army. Both were members of the 1st Squadron, 113th Cavalry Regiment. A U.S. civilian working as an interpreter, identified Tuesday as Ayad Mansoor Sakat of Macomb, Michigan, was also killed.

The ritual at Dover Air Force Base honors U.S. service members killed in action and is one of the most solemn duties undertaken by the commander in chief.

During the process, transfer cases draped with the American flag holding the remains of fallen soldiers are carried from the military aircraft that carried them to Dover to an awaiting vehicle to transport them to the mortuary facility at the base. There, the fallen service members are prepared for their final resting place.

Trump, a Republican, said during his first term that witnessing the dignified transfer of service members’ remains is “the toughest thing I have to do” as president.

Remembered as ‘the best of Iowa’

The Iowa National Guard is remembering the two men as heroes. Howard’s stepfather, Jeffrey Bunn, said Howard “loved what he was doing and would be the first in and last out,” noting that he had wanted to be a soldier since he was a young boy.

In a post on the Meskwaki Nation Police Department’s Facebook page, Bunn — who is chief of the Tama, Iowa, department — called Howard a loving husband and an “amazing man of faith” and said Howard’s brother, a staff sergeant in the Iowa National Guard, would escort “Nate” back to Iowa.

Torres-Tovar was remembered as a “very positive” person who was family oriented and someone who always put others first, according to fellow Guardsmen who were deployed with Torres-Tovar and issued a statement to the local TV broadcast station WOI.

“They were dedicated professionals and cherished members of our Guard family who represented the best of Iowa,” said Maj. Gen. Stephen Osborn, adjutant general of the Iowa National Guard.

Trump stands by Syrian leader al-Sharaa

On Saturday, Trump told reporters that he was mourning the deaths and vowed retaliation.

Trump said Monday that he remained confident in the leadership of interim Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the onetime leader of an Islamic insurgent group who led the ouster of former President Bashar Assad, whose family had an iron grip on Syrian rule for decades.

The U.S. president welcomed al-Sharaa to Washington last month for a historic visit to the White House and formally welcomed Syria as a member of the U.S.-led coalition to fight the Islamic State group. Hundreds of U.S. troops are deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting IS.

“This had nothing to do with him,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. “This had to do with ISIS.”

Three other members of the Iowa National Guard were injured in the attack. As of Monday, two were in stable condition and the other in good condition. The Pentagon has not identified them.

Trump traveled to Dover several times during his first term to honor the fallen, including for a U.S. Navy SEAL killed during a raid in Yemen, for two Army officers whose helicopter crashed in Afghanistan and for two Army soldiers killed in Afghanistan when a person dressed in an Afghan army uniform opened fire.

A new weapons system that effectively transforms two light tactical vehicles into a drone hunter-killer team is now in production for the U.S. Marines as of September, the service announced this week.

The Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) is a unique short-range ground based air defense system formed from two Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, and is designed to destroy unmanned aerial systems as well as manned aircraft, including helicopters.

The system, manufactured by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, provides Marine units with a rapid means of destroying drones and other aerial threats without requiring additional support, and allows them to hone in on and destroy targets from both fixed positions and while driving.

Each vehicle is designed to work in tandem with the other, with one geared towards shooting down helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, and the other oriented towards countering drones. The system gives Marines options to destroy targets using either Stinger missiles or a 30mm cannon.

The first full-rate production version of the MADIS debuted in September following a long period of trials. It replaces the Marines’ previous Man-Portable Air Defense System, or MANPADs, which was complex by comparison and required Marines to exit their vehicle to zero in on and destroy aerial targets.

The new version of the MADIS which is now ready to be fielded by Marines has seen several key technology upgrades, including enhanced targeting algorithms and sensor capabilities, as well as enhanced mobility. The system design is flexible enough to allow it to be upgraded to emerging threats over time.

Marines have begun training on the new system and conducted a live-fire exercise at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, California.

Marines conducted the first live-fire exercise of the MADIS during Exercise Balikatan in April 2025.

More service members may soon be able to use their meal entitlements at locations outside of standard dining facilities.

Lawmakers want to expand an Army pilot program to all service branches, allowing troops to use meal benefits on base at more locations, according to a provision in the 2026 defense policy bill.

Army officials were authorized to conduct the pilot program in last year’s defense bill, testing the idea of soldiers using their Common Access Card, or CAC, at eateries outside of the traditional DFACs.

The fiscal 2026 version of the National Defense Authorization Act has been approved by the House and is awaiting consideration by the Senate this week.

The military services run more than 400 dining facilities around the world, most of which belong to the Army. But troops have long complained about the lack of healthy dining options on base, from limited operating hours to stingy portions. Defense and service officials have been working to address some of the root problems affecting the availability of healthy food.

The Army pilot program, called the Flexible Eating and Expanded Dining Initiative, or FEED, hasn’t yet been rolled out across the entire service, according Army Materiel Command spokeswoman Samantha Tyler.

That command’s Food Innovation and Transformation team is currently working through the final approval process with Army officials, she said. They’ve also been working with the Army and Air Force Exchange Service to make sure the initiative delivers the most nutritious and accessible meal options possible, she added.

The Army conducted a two-week limited test at Fort Hood, Texas, in August. During that time, results showed that, when given the opportunity, soldiers used their meal entitlement with AAFES vendors for about 15% of their meals. The soldiers also effectively used the flexibility offered through the program, choosing mealtimes that met operational needs. For example, about 161 lunch entitlements and 30 breakfast entitlements were redeemed after 3 p.m.

During the test at Fort Hood, soldiers could choose from special menus at Freshens, Qdoba, Burger King and Starbucks at the T.J. Mills Food Court, as well as Subway and Starbucks at the Clear Creek Exchange.

DOD working on recipe to improve food on military bases

Under the FEED initiative, soldiers were allowed to purchase multiple meals — breakfast, lunch and dinner — in a single visit, using separate transactions for each, Tyler said. CAC cards could be swiped once per meal type.

“While these initial findings are promising, a longer testing period [is] recommended to capture more comprehensive data and fully assess usage trends across the force,” Tyler said.

“One of the key lessons learned is that the FEED initiative works best as a complement to existing dining options, linking together the entire food ecosystem rather than replacing a portion of it,” she said. “FEED is designed to enhance the campus style dining venues, while ensuring soldiers continue to benefit from dining facilities, kiosks and food trucks.”

Soldiers can currently use their CACs at kiosks and Army food trucks.

Under the Army’s initiative, the number of vendors authorized for CAC use will vary by location. The goal isn’t a fixed number of locations, Tyler noted, but “the right mix of options to close gaps in food access.”

Soldiers will be able to choose from special menus — with items approved by food service experts — that are put together based on affordability within the set meal entitlement ranges, she said.

While the provision in 2025 allowed the pilot program to continue for five years, the 2026 provision authorizes other military services to start their own pilot programs.

It also requires a progress report from each of the services to Congress each year. At the end of the pilot program, the services are to submit a report to Congress on lessons learned and recommendations for improvements.

BERLIN — Ukrainian, European and U.S. negotiators have wrapped up two days of talks here with what officials describe as the most substantial movement yet toward a political framework to end Russia’s full‑scale invasion, even as core territorial questions remain unresolved.

Meanwhile, Ukraine on Tuesday predicted the total costs for its defense at $120 billion for 2026, of which half would have to come from foreign support.

According to Zelenskyy and Ukrainian officials, the discussions in Berlin focused on a package of five documents that would underpin an eventual peace deal, several of which are dedicated to long‑term security guarantees for Ukraine. Kyiv says parts of the package are intended to be legally binding, with an “Article 5-like” mutual‑defense commitment, a reference to NATO nomenclature, requiring U.S. congressional approval and backed by additional European pledges.​

German officials describe Washington’s offer on legal and material guarantees as “truly remarkable” and a “very important step forward.” The conference marks the first major EU‑hosted attempt to shape the emerging security architecture around a potential ceasefire.

Europe, the U.S. and Ukraine “achieved a common sense of purpose” on Monday in their quest to end the war in Ukraine, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said during his opening remarks for the Ukraine Defense Contact Group on Tuesday. There had previously been significant differences between Europe and the U.S. regarding a peace plan proposed by Washington, which was perceived across the Atlantic as a capitulation to most of Moscow’s war aims.

The center of gravity has shifted toward Europe in the past months, as the continent is now single-handedly financing Ukraine’s continued defense against Russia following Washington’s suspension of military assistance since March 2025. Total European allocated aid since the start of Russia’s invasion now more than doubles U.S. support for Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, a Germany-based research organization.

Besides progress on security guarantees, negotiators reported no tangible advance on the question of territorial concessions.

Russian demands for formal recognition of its hold over parts of eastern Ukraine remain incompatible with Kyiv’s public position, and Berlin officials describe the road ahead on these questions as “very long.”

Ukrainian government officials have repeatedly stressed that suggestions of ceding Ukrainian-held territory remain off the table and that any deal must avoid freezing the conflict on terms favorable to Moscow.​ European leaders have said only Ukrainians can decide on a path forward in territorial questions, despite U.S. pressure in recent weeks for Kyiv to give up about a fifth of its land to Russia.

Zelenskyy has signaled that once the five‑document package is finalized with U.S. and European partners, Kyiv expects a direct meeting with President Donald Trump to test whether Moscow will accept the emerging framework.

European and U.S. officials alike are portraying the Berlin talks as “very positive,” saying there is consensus on key issues even if the outcome stopped short of a formal ceasefire proposal.

A European-led multinational peacekeeping force to be deployed in Ukraine once the war ends is a key pillar of the proposed deal.

On Tuesday, British Defence Minister John Healey reaffirmed his country’s commitment to such a mission, saying that London continues “to direct funding to prepare our U.K. troops and armed forces so that we are ready to deploy when peace comes, with troops on the ground and jets in the air.”

Ten European leaders, along with EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, issued a joint statement after the talks proposing a “multinational force for Ukraine” led by Europe and backed by the United States. The European proposal additionally called for “sustained and significant support to Ukraine to build its armed forces, which should remain at a peacetime level of 800,000.”

In the meantime, Ukraine will be reliant on support from its Western partners. Speaking at the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting on Tuesday, Denys Shmyhal, the Ukrainian minister of defense, said his country expected the war costs to total $120 billion next year, of which Ukraine would be able to cover half on its own.

“The remaining $60 billion must come from our partners,” Shmyhal said, asking the countries present to each allocate at least 0.25% of their 2026 economic power to Ukraine’s defensive effort. Air defense remains a priority, according to the defense minister.

“Strong and coordinated decisions will accelerate our path toward a just and lasting peace,” Shmyhal said. “Now is the moment to bring it closer.”

PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad — The government of Trinidad and Tobago said Monday that it would allow the U.S. military access to its airports in coming weeks as tensions build between the United States and Venezuela.

The announcement comes after the U.S. military recently installed a radar system at the airport in Tobago. The Caribbean country’s government has said the radar is being used to fight local crime, and that the small nation would not be used as a launchpad to attack any other country.

The U.S. would use the airports for activity that would be “logistical in nature, facilitating supply replenishment and routine personnel rotations,” Trinidad and Tobago’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. It did not provide further details.

Trinidad’s prime minister previously has praised ongoing U.S. strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean.

Only 7 miles separate Venezuela from the twin-island Caribbean nation at their closest point. It has two main airports: Piarco International Airport in Trinidad and ANR Robinson International Airport in Tobago.

Amery Browne, an opposition senator and the country’s former foreign minister, accused the government of being deceptive in its announcement.

Browne said Trinidad and Tobago has become “complicit facilitators of extrajudicial killings, cross-border tension and belligerence.”

“There is nothing routine about this. It has nothing to do with the usual cooperation and friendly collaborations that we have enjoyed with the USA and all of our neighbors for decades,” he said.

He said the cooperation with the U.S. takes the country “a further step down the path of a satellite state” and that it embraces a “might is right philosophy.”

The U.S. strikes began in September and have killed more than 80 people as the U.S. builds up a fleet of warships near Venezuela, including the largest U.S. aircraft carrier.

In October, a U.S. warship docked in Trinidad’s capital as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump boosts military pressure on neighboring Venezuela and its President Nicolás Maduro.

U.S. lawmakers have questioned the legality of the strikes against vessels in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific Ocean and recently announced there would be a congressional review of them.

The Iowa National Guard has identified two soldiers who were killed Saturday in an ambush by an apparent ISIS gunman in the Syrian city of Palmyra.

Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown, and Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres Tovar, 25, of Grimes, were killed in the Dec. 13 attack, the Guard announced. Both soldiers were assigned to 1st Squadron, 113th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, which is currently deployed to the region in support of ongoing counter-terrorism operations.

Three additional Iowa National Guard soldiers were wounded in the attack, officials confirmed. In addition, one U.S. civilian, who Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said was serving as an interpreter, was killed. Their identifies were not provided.

Two of the wounded soldiers required medical evacuation but are now in stable condition, according to the release. The third service member was treated locally and is recovering.

Nour al-Din al-Baba, a Syrian Interior Ministry spokesperson, claimed the gunman fired at the soldiers at the entrance to a military post. A statement by U.S. Central Command following the attack said the ISIS gunman was subsequently “engaged and killed.”

“Today, we honor the memory and sacrifice of Sgt. Howard and Sgt. Torres Tovar by sharing their names with a grateful state and nation,” Maj. Gen. Stephen Osborn, adjutant general of the Iowa National Guard, said in a release.

“They were dedicated professionals and cherished members of our Guard family who represented the best of Iowa. Our focus now is providing unwavering support to their families through this unimaginable time and ensuring the legacy of these two heroes is never forgotten.”

President Donald Trump took to social media in the wake of the attack and warned of “very serious retaliation.”

The Dec. 13 ambush marked the first combat deaths during Trump’s second term and the first such attack since the government of former Syrian President Bashar Assad was overthrown in December 2024.

Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a one-time al-Qaida-linked target who made a historic visit to the White House last month, led the forces that toppled the Assad regime.

Discussing the ambush with reporters at the White House, Trump noted that al-Sharaa was “devastated” and “extremely angry” about the attack.

The U.S. currently has hundreds of troops deployed to the region as part of Operation Inherent Resolve.

A July 2025 assessment of the Islamic State by the United Nations Security Council estimated that “terrorist fighters at large in the Syrian Arab Republic are estimated at more than 5,000.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The little road junction of Wahlerscheid was a veritable German fortress. Large concrete bunkers and log-covered pillboxes dotted the landscape, while the forest trails and roads bristled with mines and machine-gun nests. Barricades of barbed wire, piled high and 8 to 10 feet deep, covered all avenues of approach.

Out in front of the bunkers, fields of fire had been cleared to provide yet another advantage to the defenders, while the thick trees and dense undergrowth further stymied attackers.

For 2 1/2 days the Americans had been stopped in their tracks, but by 0600 on Dec. 16, 1944, the Americans’ hold on the crossroads was complete, the mopping up finished.

Evidence of the effort expended to capture Wahlerscheid was plain to see — shattered tree trunks stood starkly against the snow-covered ground, and branches littered the forest floor. Large, deep holes made by every type of shell were evident in great numbers.

Telephone wire and other communications cables were strung out crazily. Ammunition boxes, empty bandoleers and clips lay all over the torn ground. Then there were the men, tired and disheveled.

Some walked around poking through the debris. Others stood smoking cigarettes, silent. Still others, laid out in neat, straight rows, did nothing.

The battle for Wahlerscheid was over, but soon the Battle of the Bulge would unfold, and the survivors would call it “Heartbreak Crossroads.”

Located inside Germany, across the German/Belgian border, the road junction of Wahlerscheid was a key piece of the puzzle. The Roer River dams, long a major source of irritation to Allied planners, had to be captured before an advance across the wide, flat Roer Plain could be attempted.

Once taken, Wahlerscheid would provide not only decent roads but also a good axis of attack toward the dams, which lay just a few miles to the northeast.

While the newly formed 78th Infantry Division attacked German positions farther north along the German border between Lammersdorf and Monschau, the task of capturing Wahlerscheid fell to the 2nd Infantry Division, a seasoned outfit that had recently been pulled out of the line farther south.

Assembled near the town of Elsenborn the first week of December, two of the 2nd Division’s three infantry regiments, the 9th and the 38th (the third, the 23rd Infantry, was held in reserve near Elsenborn), were trucked to Büllingen, then north to Rocherath and Krinkelt, two villages so close together they had been nicknamed the “Twin Villages.”

From there, the two regiments marched north for six miles along the only road to Wahlerscheid. This single road, the main avenue of approach, was the only route by which supplies and reinforcements could be funneled to the forward regiments from divisional headquarters at Wirtzfeld.

For two days the Germans fought with grim determination, until several members of a lone U.S. patrol cut their way undetected through one barricade after another until they were in the bunker line. They later slipped back to report the breach, and late on Dec. 15, first a company, then a battalion, and then another battalion had slipped through the opening in the wire. By early the next morning, the fight for Wahlerscheid was over.

A couple miles east of and parallel to the 2nd Division’s line of march, through a dense forest belt, lay the front lines of the green 99th Infantry Division. On the Continent for just over a month, the 99th held a line from Monschau, northwest of Wahlerscheid, to the border village of Lanzerath, southeast of the Elsenborn Ridge, a distance of nearly 19 miles. Except for the area around Höfen, a village located southeast of Monschau, the 99th’s front lay inside a thick, coniferous forest.

During the first week of December, the forward rifle companies, rather than presenting a solid line, were positioned just inside the forest and parceled out in platoon-sized outposts along the entire line, thus leaving numerous undefended gaps.

The longest section of the line ran parallel to a major road, dubbed the International Highway, from a point just west of Hollerath, Germany, south to the frontier village of Losheimergraben. Intersecting the front were two trails that led from the highway west, back through the forest, where they converged about 1 1/2 miles northeast of the Twin Villages.

The northernmost trail left the highway just west of Hollerath in an area covered by the 393rd Infantry Regiment. The southern trail entered the forest west of Neuhof, also in Germany, at a point just north of where the lines of the 393rd and 394th Infantry regiments met.

To support the 2nd Division’s attack at Wahlerscheid and to draw away enemy troops, the 395th Regimental Combat Team (RCT), composed of two battalions of the 395th Infantry Regiment and one from the 393rd, had initiated an attack on Dec. 13 against German positions about 1 1/2 miles southeast of Wahlerscheid. Progressing smoothly at first, the diversion began to bog down as German resistance stiffened on Dec. 14. Terrible weather soon brought it to a complete standstill.

First Army and V Corps Intelligence believed that a German counterattack would probably occur along the 99th Division’s front. For this reason, when an awesome artillery bombardment rolled over the 99th’s front to the south of Wahlerscheid beginning at about 0530 hours on Dec. 16, commanders up and down the line thought the Germans were merely responding to the breakthrough at Wahlerscheid.

To the southeast, along the International Highway, the 99th’s two southernmost regiments were shelled. A major in the 12th Volksgrenadier Division remembered, “We old soldiers had seen many a heavy barrage, but never before anything like this.”

The intensity and duration of the shelling came as a surprise to some of the GIs, as Army Intelligence had previously reported that the Germans had only two horse-drawn artillery pieces in the entire sector. Up front, at a forward battalion command post (CP), one of the 99th’s staff officers quipped, “Christ, they sure are working those two poor horses to death.”

The GIs had prepared their positions well, however. Deep, log-covered dugouts and foxholes provided good cover, and casualties from the shelling were notably light.

As the shelling stopped or moved on to the rear at about 0635 on the 16th, German troops charged. In the north near Höfen the initial ground assault against a battalion of the 395th Infantry Regiment was so intense that on at least three occasions the bodies of Germans shot at point-blank range fell into the foxholes on top of the defending GIs.

Along the International Highway where the 393rd was positioned, large numbers of German infantry from the 12th Volksgrenadier Division followed closely on the heels of the barrage. Sweeping from behind the bunkers of the West Wall (also known as the Siegfried Line), they streamed up the slopes, dashed west across the road and hit the 3rd Battalion especially hard. As one GI put it, “It seemed like they were coming right at us and for some reason ignoring everybody else.”

One company, positioned where the northernmost forest trail joined the highway, was nearly wiped out — only one platoon escaped.

When notified of the situation near the highway, the battalion commander ordered the remaining companies to fall back on the battalion CP, to prevent it from being overrun. Meanwhile, scores of Germans pushed on down the trail and by dusk had reached the Jansbach Creek, nearly halfway through the forest.

During the late afternoon, Maj. Gen. Walter Lauer, the 99th Division commander, ordered a company from the division reserve rushed to the 3rd Battalion’s assistance. That company fought its way east along firebreaks running parallel to the trail until darkness forced a halt to the fighting. Although the Germans had punched a sizable dent in the 3rd Battalion’s line, they failed to achieve the major breakthrough needed to clear the way for the tanks of the waiting 12th SS Panzer Division.

Just to the south, the 393rd’s 1st Battalion underwent the same punishment.

There, however, most of the foxholes were positioned on the very edge of the forest with clear fields of fire, and the GIs exacted a greater toll on the advancing enemy. The first wave of grenadiers broke, then fell back in disarray, leaving behind a large number of dead and wounded.

Shortly afterward, the second assault achieved several penetrations, forcing one American company to fall back some 300 yards into the forest. After being reinforced in the afternoon, that company counterattacked and pushed the Germans back almost to the original line.

By nightfall on Dec. 16, the 393rd’s line was for the most part intact, though holed in several places. German patrols of 50 or more men infiltrated through the gaps and probed the woods for American defenses.

South of the 393rd’s 1st Battalion, the 394th’s 2nd Battalion had been hit shortly after the barrage had lifted early on the 16th. There, the enemy force was not as strong, roughly equal to what the 2nd Battalion had on the line. The GIs fought off all attacks, including one in which the Germans used several self-propelled guns. The 99th’s supporting artillery laid on deadly fire that quickly put an end to attempts to break through.

Likewise, the 394th’s 1st and 3rd battalions in and around Losheimergraben had come under attack from several directions. Both units sat astride roads that had been designated as primary march routes for the 1st SS Panzer Division, commanded by SS Oberführer Wilhelm Mohnke.

The 1st Battalion’s lines crossed the main road, which branched off the International Highway at Losheimergraben and then wound westward through Büllingen and Malmedy. The 3rd Battalion, which constituted the division reserve, was in position near Bucholz and the little rail station there. Its lines stretched across the secondary road that led from Lanzerath through Bucholz to Honsfeld and eventually Malmedy.

Absolutely vital to the German advance, the two roads had to be captured quickly by German infantry, for just behind the foot troops several hundred tanks, halftracks and armored cars waited. Once the Losheimergraben crossroads was taken, the pent-up force of SS Col. Joachim ‘Jochen’ Peiper’s armored battle group (Kampfgruppe) of the 1st SS Panzer Division would rush through the breach and dash headlong for the Meuse River and beyond. The division’s ultimate objective was Antwerp.

Not long after the artillery barrage ended, German infantry at Losheim advanced toward Bucholz along the deep cut of the rail line. At about the same time, two other battalions of enemy infantry fought their way up to and then across the International Highway just northeast of the crossroads and forced a gap between two companies of GIs. Only the superb actions of the attached mortar platoons saved the tenuous American toehold.

As the attack from the northeast progressed, more Germans probed, then struck from the other side of the crossroads. The pressure against the 1st Battalion mounted on both sides of Losheimergraben, but with help from the 3rd Battalion the crossroads remained in American hands. However, the reinforcement of the crossroads left the American positions in and around Bucholz dangerously thin.

In the little hamlet of Lanzerath, just south of Bucholz, the 394th’s Intelligence and Reconnaissance (I&R) Platoon had been fighting all morning on Dec. 16. Charged with maintaining contact with the 99th Division’s southern neighbor, the 14th Cavalry Group, across the two-mile-wide Losheim Gap, Lt. Lyle Bouck and his handful of men had been battling paratroopers of the German 3rd Fallschirmjäger (Parachute) Division since before dawn.

Shortly after the artillery barrage ended, strong thrusts against the 14th Cavalry Group led to its withdrawal, and contact with the I&R platoon was broken. Members of a towed tank destroyer outfit in Lanzerath also retreated, leaving the little band of men to fend for themselves.

Occupying good defensive positions atop a tree-covered hill overlooking Lanzerath, Bouck and his men had watched in the pre-dawn darkness as a long column of enemy infantry marched up the road toward Lanzerath. Just slightly behind the main column, Bouck noticed three men talking as they walked along. Thinking that they must be the 3rd Parachute Division commander and part of his staff, Bouck ordered his men to shoot the three.

Taking careful aim, the GIs were about to fire when a little girl ran to the three men and pointed straight at the American positions.

One of the men yelled a command and the paratroopers dropped into ditches alongside the road. A fierce firefight erupted, but the I&R platoon kept the Germans in check all day long.

Then, after dark, the Germans worked around the flanks and overran the determined GIs, killing several and capturing the rest, including Lt. Bouck. At that point it was only the few men remaining in Bucholz who were keeping the Germans from rolling up the entire right flank of the 99th Division.

Early on the afternoon of Dec. 16, the 2nd Division’s 23rd Infantry Regiment minus one battalion was attached to the 99th Infantry Division.

The 1st Battalion, commanded by Lt. Col. John C. Hightower, was ordered by Gen. Lauer to move to Hünningen, several miles northwest of Losheimergraben on the main road to Büllingen. Lauer hoped the move would shore up his flagging southern flank.

Pulling into position late in the afternoon, the 1st Battalion quickly established defenses south and southeast of Hünningen.

Meanwhile, the 3rd Battalion, under Lt. Col. Paul Tuttle, moved out to the north and east of the Twin Villages. Early the following morning, part of the battalion was to attack east and link up with the remainder of the 393rd’s 3rd Battalion, which was still positioned along the northern forest trail. The rest of the battalion was to take up positions astride the southern trail to provide backup for the 393rd’s other battalion.

However, by the time the 3rd Battalion arrived it was already growing dark, and little movement actually took place. A short time later, Tuttle received orders from Maj. Gen. Walter Robinson, 2nd Division commander, to stay put and establish positions across both trails.

As midnight approached in Lanzerath on Dec. 16, the Kampfgruppe of the 1st SS Panzer Division drove into the village. The commander, Col. Peiper, was furious. After being stalled all day at the rear of a long column, he had finally received orders to break out to the west any way he could. Pushing the men and equipment ahead of him off the road, he had finally reached Lanzerath — several hours later than scheduled.

Waiting for the 3rd Parachute Division to clear a path through the 99th’s lines, in addition to traversing broken terrain and mined roads, had cost him even more time — time that he feared he might not be able to make up. He was not in the mood for any more delays.

Inside a small cafe, he found the commander of the 9th Parachute Regiment, Col. Helmut von Hoffman, and demanded to know why he had not moved farther. More than a little intimidated by the SS officer, the paratroop colonel explained that his men had run into stiff resistance and that the woods and road ahead were packed with American troops and tanks.

Peiper asked if any reconnaissance had been conducted, and, as he had anticipated, the answer was no. Thoroughly disgusted, Peiper demanded that a battalion of paratroopers accompany his tanks. He was going ahead. Prisoner Lyle Bouck, lying on the floor of the cafe, watched as Peiper stormed out.

Around 0400 on Dec. 17, the lead tanks of Kampfgruppe Peiper left Lanzerath and rolled into Bucholz, completely routing the small American garrison there.

Only one man, a headquarters company radio operator, remained in the town, hidden in a cellar. He counted the number of tanks as they rolled by and relayed information to division headquarters until he was captured.

The Germans forged ahead toward Honsfeld. Just short of their destination, they came upon a stream of American vehicles, all headed west through the little village.

Rather than opening fire, the Germans, in the confusion and pre-dawn darkness, simply joined the convoy, pulling into line as breaks presented themselves. Once inside the village proper, the German tanks and infantry riding them opened fire with telling results. Honsfeld, site of one of the 99th Division’s rest centers, was crowded with men and equipment of all types, and retreating vehicles clogging the narrow streets added to the congestion.

As the Germans sprayed buildings and vehicles with tank and automatic-weapons fire, GIs emerged only to be killed or captured. In some instances GI drivers hastily abandoned their vehicles and fled on foot. In very short order, Peiper had control of Honsfeld and a supply of something else he desperately needed — gasoline.

His tanks refueled, Peiper proceeded toward Büllingen, just a few miles away. He was met by a hastily formed defense consisting of U.S. engineers, headquarters personnel and a few tank destroyers.

Fighting raged in and around the village throughout the morning, but the sheer weight of numbers on the German side finally forced the defenders to fall back. By late morning, a last-ditch effort to block the Butgenbach road took shape. Instead of forcing the issue and driving north, however, a move that would have most certainly trapped the 2nd and 99th divisions, Peiper’s battle group turned southwest, completely confounding the Americans.

As Gen. Lauer later commented, “The enemy had the key to success within his hands but did not know it.”

By late afternoon on Dec. 16, the 2nd Division commander’s feeling of uneasiness had turned to one of impending disaster.

Gen. Robertson had by then lost his division reserve to the 99th as well as a combat command of the 9th Armored Division, on loan to him to use when the Wahlerscheid breakthrough was completed. Most of his infantry and two divisional artillery battalions were well forward, which would make any withdrawal extremely difficult at best because only a single road led south from Wahlerscheid.

Earlier in the day he had requested permission from the First Army through the V Corps to call off the Wahlerscheid attack but was turned down. Since no one at First Army headquarters realized the scope of the German offensive at this stage, there seemed little to gain and much to lose by pulling back from the Wahlerscheid position.

Undaunted, Robertson personally called the regimental commanders at Wahlerscheid late that evening and ordered them to hold tight for the night; they were to continue the attack in the morning, but only upon his express order.

The Germans renewed their attack at Losheimergraben early on Dec. 17. Strong attacks from both flanks and the front failed to achieve any significant progress, but the thinly held American line was crumbling rapidly as the remnants of the 394th’s 1st Battalion were reduced to small groups able to offer little more than token resistance.

Compounding the Americans’ problems, German engineers had repaired a bridge along the Losheim-Losheimergraben road, and shortly before noon German armor made an appearance on the road, crawling slowly toward the disputed crossroads. As even more enemy infantry joined the fray, the few remaining GIs pulled back from the woods and took up positions in basements in the few buildings around a small customs house.

Around 1400, a withdrawal from the Losheimergraben area was authorized. Moving back through the woods, men of the 1st and 3rd battalions found themselves in Mürringen, due south of the Twin Villages and just north of Hünningen, where the lone battalion from the 23rd Infantry still held positions.

During the withdrawal, the 2nd Battalion clashed with a large group of Germans. With his ammunition dangerously low, the American commander was unwilling to risk another fight, and he led his troops into the woods southeast of Mürringen until a clear determination of friendly positions was made.

At Hünningen, Col. Hightower anticipated a major attack as the Germans moved past his rear. But what the 1st Battalion commander did not realize was that the enemy column (Kampfgruppe Peiper) was actually detouring around Hünningen, interested only in getting back onto its assigned route.

At 1600, the expected attack unfolded, but not from the rear. Heavy shelling preceded an infantry attack from around Losheimergraben. American artillery fire, called down by an observer in the church steeple, was highly effective in stopping the onrushing German troops.

But the enemy kept coming, the German commander sending seven distinct attacking waves during the afternoon and early evening. Several penetrations of the thin American line were made but at no time was the enemy able to take Hünningen.

Sometime during the afternoon, Hightower received a radio message removing him from the 394th and assigning him to the 9th Infantry Division headquartered in Wirtzfeld.

The message, from Col. Chester Hirschfelder, 9th Infantry commander, also instructed Hightower to “pull back to new positions or you will be cut off.”

By then, however, Hightower’s men were so closely engaged with the Germans that he was not sure if he could break off and move without great difficulty. Nevertheless, he called Col. Riley of the 394th and advised him of the change in plans. Riley was notably upset, for if Hightower’s men pulled out now, his entire right flank would be up in the air, and he still did not know the whereabouts of his 2nd Battalion.

A quick radio exchange with Gen. Lauer confirmed the order. Riley knew now that he had no alternative — with ammunition running out and enemy pressure increasing by the minute, he would also have to pull back.

Lauer agreed but insisted that any move would have to be coordinated with the 23rd Infantry. Riley spoke with Hightower again, and between them a plan took shape. The withdrawal from Hünningen and Mürringen would commence soon after midnight.

The men of the 393rd’s 3rd Battalion, meanwhile, had counterattacked east along the northern forest trail early on Dec. 17, in an attempt to regain their positions along the International Highway.

They drove the Germans back off the trail, but then ran into a reinforced battalion of SS Panzergrenadiers coming from the opposite direction and soon joined by the 12th SS Panzer Division.

Roving teams of GIs using bazookas managed to hold the panzers at bay for a short time, but the combination of armor and numerical superiority was too much for the defenders.

The GIs — critically short of just about everything by then — had to withdraw again.

At 1030, Col. Jean Scott, 393rd Regiment commander, obtained the OK to withdraw to a new line east of Rocherath. The 3rd Battalion slowly withdrew along the trail and firebreaks, eventually passing through the line established by the 23rd Infantry’s 3rd Battalion.

As they filed past, the men of the 23rd Infantry begged for any ammunition the others could spare, since they had been issued only the basic load, which would not last for long. At that point, although they did not know it, the few hundred men of the 23rd Infantry’s 3rd Battalion were all that stood in the way of the Germans’ cutting off all 2nd and 99th Division troops in the Wahlerscheid sector.

By late morning, the situation in the woods had deteriorated to such an extent that Col. Tuttle’s orders had been changed to “Hold at all costs.”

Unsure of what to expect, Tuttle called his company commanders together and passed the order to them.

Robertson had realized by daybreak on Dec. 17 that his division and the 99th were fighting for their very existence.

Finally receiving permission to call off the Wahlerscheid attack, he immediately began to implement the withdrawal that had been planned during the night. The plan, “skinning the cat” as Robertson phrased it, called for the most forward units at Wahlerscheid to pull back first, through those behind them.

This included the three battalions of the 395th RCT, which was now attached to the 2nd Division. Robertson’s plan envisioned the RCT pulling back along a trail that ran nearly parallel to the main road, before joining it about a mile and a half north of Rocherath.

Marching south along that trail, the RCT would provide a cover for the other battalions coming back south along the main road.

Waiting on the main road, Robertson met the first of the RCT members and directed the 1st Battalion to positions north of Rocherath, along both sides of the Wahlerscheid road.

The first of his own units, the 38th Infantry’s 3rd Battalion, came into view a short time later. As had previously been arranged, Col. Frank Boos, the 38th Infantry commander, had instructed his 3rd Battalion to proceed south past Krinkelt and establish a line south-southeast of the village to deny use of the roads in that area to the Germans.

In the early afternoon, the 9th Infantry’s 1st Battalion started south down the main road. The 1st Battalion, commanded by Lt. Col. William D. McKinley (a grand-nephew of President William McKinley) was last in line. As they headed south, the men heard the sound of the battle through the falling snow.

East of the road, the battle in the forest reached a critical stage. Just after the survivors of the 393rd’s 3rd Battalion had passed, German tanks and infantry unleashed a torrent of fire against the 23rd Infantry’s roadblock.

Company I was hit especially hard but held its ground until ammunition gave out. Falling back to a firebreak just a few yards behind their original line, the Americans attempted to establish another defensive position, but the Germans, sensing victory, closed too quickly.

Two Sherman tanks positioned to back up the 3rd Battalion dueled with the advancing panzers in a gallant effort, but they were no match for the Tigers and Panthers and were quickly knocked out.

As they withdrew, the GIs came out onto large stretches of open ground that were raked by German artillery and rocket fire, adding to the confusion. Many men became separated from their units and made their way to the rear individually or were rounded up and captured by the rapidly advancing Germans.

At 1600, Robertson learned that the 393rd’s 3rd Battalion had pulled back from the woods and that his 23rd Infantry’s 3rd Battalion had been badly mauled. He realized that there was now no effective resistance to the east and that the Twin Villages and the Wahlerscheid road could be captured at any time.

Hurrying back along the road toward Wahlerscheid, he came upon Company K of the 9th Infantry’s 3rd Battalion. He quickly directed the commander to take his men southeast to Lausdell, a point where several farm roads and trails converged.

That done, he jumped back into his jeep and rushed north toward Wahlerscheid again. Just up the road he met McKinley’s badly depleted 3rd Battalion. Locating 10 trucks, Robertson instructed McKinley to load as many men as possible and have the rest follow on foot.

He then led the convoy to the Lausdell junction. Once there, he told McKinley to round up and take command of all the troops in the immediate vicinity, set up a defense around the junction and hold “until ordered otherwise.”

McKinley’s force — roughly 600 men — began the tedious but necessary task of digging in. As they began, survivors from the 23rd Infantry streamed back from the woods to the east. Seeing the friendly faces, one of the retiring troops asked which outfit was taking up the Lausdell position.

Through gritted teeth one of the digging men replied: “Ninth Infantry. It ain’t enough we attack for five f–ing days. We gotta turn around and take up somebody else’s defense."

By 1800, McKinley’s positions were fairly well-established, including some mines and a direct communications line to supporting artillery emplaced around Elsenborn.

At about 1830, one of the forward companies reported that tanks were approaching. By now it was pitch dark, and positive identification of the armor was impossible.

Forewarned that still more men from the 23rd, 393rd and 394th might yet come out of the forest, the GIs held their fire, and by the time anyone realized the tanks were German they had rumbled past the forward outposts and headed for Rocherath.

A short distance behind the front line, two GIs started on their way to verify the tanks’ identity. As they were standing alongside the road SS Panzergrenadiers walked right past the GIs, not paying them any attention.

Then the tanks came roaring by, and one of the commanders riding high in a turret gestured rudely at the two men as he passed. As the two men raced off quickly toward the CP to request artillery support, the Germans opened fire, killing one of them. The other made it to the CP, and soon mortars were falling, but just one tank was hit.

Meanwhile, more tanks and infantry appeared at the front. Realizing now that anything approaching along the road from the forest was German, McKinley’s men were galvanized to action.

A string of mines pulled across the road stopped two of the panzers, while daring bazooka teams accounted for two more. Along another road still more German armor appeared. Artillery fire took out four of those tanks, but several others ran the gantlet of fire and continued on to Rocherath.

Just a few minutes later, still more enemy tanks materialized on the main road, this time accompanied by a large number of infantry. The artillery liaison officer screamed into his radio handset for fire on the rapidly closing column, saying, “If you don’t get it out now, it’ll be too goddamned late!”

The response came a minute later in a deafening crash of exploding shells, and the German attack withered under the brutal pounding. When the shelling ceased, a silence described by one man as “almost frightening” fell over the battlefield.

While McKinley’s men were digging in, the last American troops left Wahlerscheid en route to the Twin Villages. Two battalions from the 38th Infantry were nearing an area called the Baracken Crossroads when German artillery began to fall on them.

The 1st Battalion, under Lt. Col. Frank Mildren, ran through the deadly fire, with two companies taking heavy casualties. Making his way to Rocherath, Mildren tried to locate his executive officer. He finally spotted him near the gray stone church that separated the two villages.

Mildren got a quick briefing, then made his way to the CP, a house just south of the church. Locating as many of his men as possible, he directed them into positions east and northeast of Krinkelt, placing one platoon farther out in front of the others to give the alarm if the Germans broke through. The 2nd Battalion, meanwhile, filtered into Rocherath to positions east and northeast of that village, almost directly behind McKinley’s positions at Lausdell.

West of Krinkelt, engineers from the 2nd Division worked feverishly to shore up the single dirt road between the Twin Villages and Wirtzfeld. It was along that road that Robertson planned to move the men from the two divisions as soon as a cohesive defense could be created along the Elsenborn Ridge.

That night, east of the Twin Villages, the roads and fields were akin to a scene from hell. Vehicles and buildings burned brightly, tracers skipped back and forth, and flares of all colors floated down through the inky darkness while artillery shells and rockets exploded everywhere. As one officer saw it, “The night was ablaze with more noise and flame [than he had] thought possible for men to create.”

In the Twin Villages, the tanks that had earlier gotten by McKinley’s men roamed the streets shooting at anything that moved. Near the church they encountered three Shermans. The ensuing fight was short and one-sided; soon all three American tanks were smoking hulks. Adding to the bedlam, German artillery bracketed the villages, setting more buildings afire.

Late on Dec. 17, two events occurred that would have an effect not only on the raging battle in and around the Twin Villages, but also, later, the defense of the Elsenborn Ridge itself.

First, the 1st Infantry Division’s 26th Infantry Regiment had arrived and taken up positions between Butgenbach and Büllingen. This took some of the pressure off the few remaining troops of the 99th Division south and southwest of the Twin Villages. It also strengthened the weak southern flank and alleviated some of Robertson’s concern about a thrust from Büllingen.

Secondly, the remaining men of the 394th’s 1st Battalion at Mürringen, as well as the 23rd’s 1st Battalion at Hünningen, gave up their positions. Adhering to Lauer’s orders, both units broke off contact and made their way to the Twin Villages. In the confusion around Krinkelt, many men became lost and separated, but the majority of the 394th made it through Krinkelt and Wirtzfeld to Elsenborn while those of the 23rd made it to Wirtzfeld, where they joined the 9th Infantry in establishing a defense of the village.

Throughout the night, artillery continued to pound the Twin Villages as German tanks prowled the streets in search of American positions. But more than a few panzers fell prey to teams of bazooka — firing GIs who stalked and then destroyed the steel behemoths in the narrow lanes.

In several cases when bazooka rockets ran out, GIs emptied gasoline cans over the often slow-moving tanks and lit them with thermite grenades. After losing their infantry support, three German tanks hid in the rubble and played dead, content to wait until daylight before resuming the attack. Farther east, throughout the night, the Germans funneled men and armor into the woods in preparation for an all-out assault at dawn.

At 0700, with thick fog and smoke obscuring the battlefield, the Germans sallied forth again, a heavy barrage of artillery and rockets preceding their advance.

Near Lausdell, McKinley’s men, fed and resupplied overnight, prepared to meet the challenge. They did not have to wait long — soon, hundreds of SS Panzergrenadiers supported by tanks loomed out of the fog. Letting the first wave of armor pass, the GIs rose from their foxholes and engaged the enemy infantry with any weapon at hand — guns, knives, even shovels.

“One man tried to stop a tank by jamming his rifle between the cleats of its track,” recalled an eyewitness. Bazooka teams crept up to the slow-moving armor and knocked out several, small-arms fire picking off any crewman who tried to escape.

Excellent shooting by American artillery finally broke up the savage attack, but the determined Germans were not finished. At 0830, after regrouping in the woods, they came on again in even larger numbers. This time, even with the deadly artillery fire right on target, the GIs around Lausdell were unable to stem the German tide. Several tanks broke through followed closely by German infantry, both headed for the cauldron that was the Twin Villages.

During the night, McKinley had received word that his men would be withdrawn as soon as the 38th Infantry’s 2nd Battalion had established its defense, but the Germans struck before McKinley’s men could pull out.

Via radio, McKinley told Col. Boos that he could not disengage unless tank or tank destroyer support could be found.

Suddenly, as if on cue, four Shermans appeared at the Baracken Crossroads. Asked if he wanted to fight, the tank platoon commander yelled loudly, “Hell, yes!”

The Shermans moved in quickly, firing at enemy armor between the front lines and Rocherath. In quick succession, they accounted for four knocked out German tanks.

The planned withdrawal commenced shortly after noon with the Shermans providing close support, as American artillery again rose to the occasion and prevented any interference by the enemy infantry. The last out of the CP, McKinley and his operations officer ran, heads lowered, towards the Baracken Crossroads, and as they fled they heard Germans shouting behind them, demanding their unit’s surrender.

Just a little over a day earlier, 600 men had gone into Lausdell; now only 217 came out. The magnificent stand by McKinley and his men was a high point seldom witnessed in battle. “You have saved my regiment,” Boos told him.

In Krinkelt, the men of Mildren’s 1st Battalion had been fighting tanks practically barehanded all morning long. Mildren had tried more than once to secure assistance from Boos in Rocherath, but to no avail.

As the morning wore on and more panzers appeared, Mildren directed one of his staff to call the CP again for armored support.

In short order, a junior officer was on the radio talking with Boos. “Sir, we’ve got to have TDs [tank destroyers]. We’re being overrun by Jerry tanks.”

Calmly, Boos asked, “How many tanks? And just how close are they to you?”

Just then, one of the German tanks roared by outside Mildren’s CP, shaking the house to its very foundation. The young officer then replied, “Well, Colonel, if I went up to the second floor, I could piss out the window and hit at least six.”

The savage fighting continued nonstop all day. Infantry and tank battles raged throughout the villages. The streets and lanes of both were filled with wrecked and burning tanks.

Bodies of American and German dead were strewn about everywhere, frozen into the grotesque positions that only violent death can fashion.

Men were captured, escaped and were recaptured. For hours GIs and grenadiers fought one another separated only by a narrow road. Word that the SS had been murdering prisoners and bayoneting wounded spread like wildfire through the American ranks and as the battle for Krinkelt and Rocherath continued — they neither gave nor expected quarter.

Near Mildren’s CP in Krinkelt, a Tiger tank was wreaking havoc. Lt. Jesse Morrow, Mildren’s communications officer, watched as the 60-ton monster rolled over a jeep, flattening it.

Grabbing a bazooka that had been flung from the jeep, Morrow aimed at the rear of the tank and fired. The tank rolled on a little, out of control, then careened into a house. A crewman stuck his head out of the top hatch, and Morrow fired his .45 at him until it was empty.

Just then a second jeep came toward the young officer. Spotting another bazooka in the vehicle, he stopped the driver, grabbed the weapon and leaped around the corner, ready to fire. Then he froze. He was looking directly down the tank’s cannon. The tank’s gunner fired, and the concussion from the shell exploding behind him knocked Morrow unconscious.

Coming to, Morrow saw the tank was a smoking hulk. He crawled back to the CP where Mildren, who had watched the entire scene unfold, could not believe that Morrow was still alive — alive, but not unscathed.

The 88mm round from the Tiger had grazed Morrow’s neck as it passed, and he was bleeding profusely. Mildren ordered him evacuated immediately to a field hospital. As he was being loaded into an ambulance, Morrow noticed three badly burned German prisoners.

A medic told him, “These guys were in the tank that shot you. A GI threw a thermite bomb down the turret.”

Smiling at the young American officer, one of the Germans asked, “Do you have a cigarette? Cigarette?” Morrow tried to get up. But with his fingers still clawing at the German, he dropped back, unconscious.

The plan for the withdrawal from the Twin Villages had been finalized by early morning Dec. 19. It was simple: units would be pulled out from left to right, or from north to south.

Gen. Robertson encouraged the officers who were actually leading men not to use the word “withdrawal.” This action was “a move to new positions,” and would be conducted in an orderly fashion.

The men would “walk, not run.”

About 1330, Col. Boos ordered all equipment that could not be carried out of the villages to be destroyed. The Germans, still unwilling to give up, attacked throughout the day, but not on the scale of previous days. This was partially due to the fact that the 12th SS Panzer Division had been ordered to detour south and bypass the bottleneck, and continue on to its final objective — the banks of the Meuse River.

Commencing at 1730, the 395th RCT fell back from positions around the Baracken Crossroads, withdrawing along a boggy trail toward Elsenborn.

The 38th Infantry’s 2nd Battalion was next, followed by Mildren’s 1st Battalion. Soon thereafter, the majority of American troops were gone, out of the charnel house that the Twin Villages had become. A rear guard consisting of infantry, engineers and some tank destroyers held the back door through Wirtzfeld open until early morning on Dec. 20.

Then they too made their way back along the muddy, deeply rutted road to Elsenborn.

After three long, difficult days of practically nonstop combat (seven days for most of the 2nd Division), the initial phase of the battle around Elsenborn Ridge was over. Although some units lost as much as 80% of their combat strength, the back of the German offensive in the Ardennes was effectively broken at the Twin Villages.

The continuing efforts of the 2nd and 99th divisions, in concert with the 1st Division to the south and the 78th Division in the north, near Elsenborn Ridge, would end all German hopes for a successful drive to the Meuse River and then the vital Belgian port of Antwerp.

Originally published by WWII Magazine, our sister publication.

It might seem inconceivable that the use of drones in future battles would have come to the forefront of discussions of NATO strategy in the 1950s, but that is exactly what happened when Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery delivered an address to the Royal United Services Institute in 1954.

Montgomery, who helped create the foundations of NATO and was then serving as its Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe (DSACEUR), gave a speech entitled, “A Look Through A Window at World War III,” which stirred up much controversy at the time.

Many of the thoughts Montgomery expressed regarding Western defense and the evolution of war are still highly relevant in discussions of defense policy today.

Here is a look at some of Montgomery’s thoughts on NATO and how technology would change future battles.

Airpower

Montgomery predicted that airpower would become the dominant factor in war, that large surface vessels would become obsolete and that unmanned aerial systems — known to us as drones — would become ubiquitous.

“Later on…the East may have developed means of delivering their weapons with accuracy, both short-range and long-range, which do not rely on piloted aircraft,” Montgomery said. “Our ability to counter that threat by both offensive and defensive measures will be much reduced, because the targets will be far less vulnerable — whether they are launching sites, or the weapons themselves actually in the air.”

He presciently remarked that technology would eventually enable aircraft to “remain in the skies for prolonged periods and in all weathers,” adding, “That time is not yet, but it will come.”

Montgomery noted that he believed that there would always be some tactical need for piloted aircraft to perform specific support tasks, although the role of human pilots would be reduced.

He said that air dominance was of critical importance for NATO, as he believed that the West would struggle to maintain air superiority as new weapons developed.

Montgomery said that in case of a surprise assault, it was vital to “be able to hold such an attack long enough to enable nations to… mobilize their collective strength,” and that a response from NATO needed to consist of “an immediate air offensive on the largest possible scale, directed at the enemy’s air forces and at his homeland.”

Above all, Montgomery stressed that NATO countries needed to guard against a surprise aerial attack. This reflection was based on his observations of how airpower evolved during and after World War II, and the rising industrial strength of Communist nations. He stated emphatically that a future war would not see NATO allies have from the outset the same advantages in air superiority that the Allies had from 1943 onwards.

“Absolute defense against air attack will be impossible in the future. A deterrent, the means with which to hit back instantly and to give more than you receive, is the surest way to make an aggressor think twice before he attacks,” he said.

“We must develop an effective, and global, early warning system in order to have some chance of being able to take the offensive in the air should we be attacked,” he said.

He stated that he believed that “vertical lift aircraft” would be essential to achieve air dominance as this airpower could be dispersed and not an easy target for enemy forces. An astute analyst of military technology, Montgomery did not specify helicopters, but his remarks indicate that he believed vertical aircraft could develop in different forms.

“There is clearly a tremendous future of vertical lift aircraft and it must be exploited for the benefit of land forces,” Montgomery said.

A Hybrid Third World War

Montgomery believed that a potential third world war would consist of distinct phases: a battle for control of the air and seas, followed by hybrid attacks that could involve nuclear weapons — rather than the popular concept of a single nuclear strike.

“Those who are inclined to believe that future wars will be confined to push-button activities would do well to stop deluding themselves,” Montgomery argued.

He said that new technology would necessitate shrinking of naval forces, with the seas predominantly being controlled from the air and greater reliance overall on undersea vessels and smaller craft. Remarkably, he said he believed the aircraft carrier — which had risen to the peak of prominence in World War II — would eventually become obsolete.

He regarded it as vital for Western navies to still maintain control of the seas but be able and willing to adapt to new capabilities. As with airpower, Montgomery regarded force projection at sea as of critical importance.

“The first task of the Western naval forces is to make certain that they can deal with any challenge to our control of the seas, and that we do not lose that control,” he said.

Rapid Integration

Montgomery also stressed that the West needed to phase out weapons that become obsolete over time as technology progresses, noting that “the solution should be on the side of the long-term new weapons.” He also called for Western allied nations to create more flexible forces with an unprecedented degree of cohesion and interoperability between the services. Bureaucracy and duplication of effort, he said, were impeding the ability of military forces to be able to work effectively and be prepared to respond rapidly to threats.

“We seem to have lost the art of command, other than by paper,” said Montgomery. “No ordinary man can read half the paper that is in circulation; I doubt if the other half is worth reading.”

Raising the specter of nuclear war, Montgomery said he believed that governments needed to have measures in place to prevent and mitigate the damage of potential nuclear strikes, and above all, build up viable deterrents.

“As time passes and the offensive capability between East and West levels out, the advantage will go to that side which has the greater defensive strength, which can protect itself against attack, and can survive to strike back,” he said.

Days after Pete Hegseth was installed as the Pentagon’s top civilian, some all-volunteer teams of service women working to address obstacles and improve policy became casualties of his war on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI. But a provision tucked into the $900 billion defense policy bill would bring them back.

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 2026, which passed the House Dec. 11, contains a provision that restores service-level women’s initiative teams.

The bill would require the service secretaries to establish one of these teams for each of the five services under the Defense Department within a year after the bill becomes law.

These teams, composed of women in uniform representing “a variety of ranks, backgrounds and occupational specialties,” are to be tasked with identifying and addressing issues that hinder women’s service; supporting recruiting and retention; recommending policy changes that support the needs of women in service; and fostering a sense of community, according to language in the bill.

The legislation requires the secretary of defense to submit an annual report for the next five years on the activities and progress of the women’s initiative teams, including a summary of their activities, assessment of the policy impact they’ve had and any recommendations for legislative or policy changes to further support their success.

The language restoring the women’s initiative teams originated with Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Pennsylvania Democrat who served as an Air Force officer on active duty and in the Reserves from 1989-2004.

Despite a contentious political climate and suspicion around policy specific to women in the military, Houlahan said she hoped that “common sense was the thing that won the day” in allowing the women’s initiative teams provision to make it into the final version of the NDAA.

“More importantly, it’s all about readiness for the military in general,” she told Military Times in an interview. “As we are 51% of the population and about 20% of the folks who serve in uniform, it’s important that that demographic, for lack of a better word, be supported.”

Houlahan said she believed that the teams were “just a convenient target from a new administration.”

“When cooler and calmer, more rational heads got in the game, and Congress did its job, we were able to bring it back to life,” she said.

The legislation would also make the women’s initiative teams consistent across the services.

The Air Force‘s team had been serving for nearly two decades when it was ordered to cease operations following President Donald Trump’s inaugural raft of executive orders in January.

The Navy’s team had been in service for less than a year and was not formally canceled by the service.

In the Marine Corps, female service members launched an unofficial WIT in 2020 to advocate for changes like better parental leave and adjustments to outdated body composition standards, always stressing they did not speak on behalf of the Corps or the Defense Department. This legislation would codify that team and put its membership and activities under the purview of the secretary of the Navy.

In the Air Force, WIT members have successfully advocated for uniform changes, including development of a two-piece flight suit and a system that allows women to relieve themselves more easily in the cockpit. The team also reduced restrictions that prevented shorter airmen of both genders from serving as pilots.

Other issues the WIT worked on, such as child care availability and parental leave, are relevant to the total force.

“What I hope is that this administration really understands [that] this is ops and readiness for service women to do our jobs,” former WIT member Alea Nadeem told this reporter in January. “We’re asking for your help to make us more lethal and more ready, and give us the equipment and resources that we need to do that.”

It’s not clear to what extent a congressional mandate will force action by the Pentagon. Hegseth in April announced he had “ended” the Defense Department’s Women, Peace, and Security program, despite its creation by Congress.

The program continues today, but at the minimum staffing and activity level required by law.

Houlahan said accountability was a key consideration in crafting the language of the WIT provision.

“In this particular situation, we see the legal language of ‘shall,’ which is statutorily pretty powerful; legislatively, very powerful,” she said.

“And you also see in this NDAA some guardrails being placed on the administration and on the secretary of defense,” she added. “I am really hopeful that the armed services committees on both sides of the Capitol are awakened, and I’m very hopeful that Congress itself is realizing that we really need to put our foot down in terms of our Article One responsibilities and obligations, and hold these guys to account in the laws that we pass.”

Ralph J. Osterhoudt, now 96, was 15 when World War II began. His family’s Hudson Valley, New York, farm was just a bicycle ride north of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Hyde Park estate, where Osterhoudt worked summers. Though a schoolboy, he stepped up to serve, first as a volunteer in the Ground Observer Corps, organized to alert military authorities should enemy aircraft penetrate American skies. Later — as a U.S. Army replacement rushed to Europe’s frontlines — Osterhoudt got a much more intimate view of the war when he fought through France and into Germany.

Describe your life before World War II.

My town of Staatsburg was very small: 500 people. The dirt road we lived on didn’t have electricity or telephone. The first 18 years of my life weren’t anything to brag about. Our 20-acre farm was for our survival. There was very little money. Mostly we bartered. But we ate well — we didn’t eat garbage. My father also worked for Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a gardener. Everybody worked. I had six sisters and five brothers. [Ralph and two sisters survive.] I went to work on our farm at 4:30 a.m. on school days. I milked 10 cows by hand. I’d come home at 3 in the afternoon and milk the cows again.

You also worked for the Roosevelts.

I used to mow the lawn and plant trees during the summer. One time I was on the mowing tractor when Eleanor came out with a metal pitcher of iced water. She gave me a drink, and we chatted.

In what ways did the war change things?

We were one nation. Everybody was in the war effort. My brother Irving was on the [battleship USS] Missouri for three years. My brother Richard went into the army for six months but was medically discharged. While I was still in high school, I did the ground observer lookout tower.

How did you get involved in that?

The government built this small place overlooking the Hudson River. It wasn’t much bigger than an outhouse, with a roof, a door, and a very small window. Maybe 20 students volunteered to be lookouts. Someone from the government came to the school and told us our responsibilities. You weren’t allowed to have newspapers or bring your homework, because when you’re reading, you’re not watching. Maybe they showed us sketches of what to look for, but we didn’t have to know what enemy aircraft looked like. If something was moving in the air or on the Hudson River, it wasn’t supposed to be there.

What did the work require?

Girls with good grades got permission to stand watch in the daytime. The younger boys — high school freshmen and sophomores — went from after school until dark. My hours were from 8 p.m. to midnight, five nights a week.

I lived 4 miles from the observation post. I rode my bicycle there on gravel roads in the rain, snow, whatever. Sometimes it got so cold I wore most of the clothes I had. The post had a telephone, a Coleman lantern, a straight-back chair, a tiny table and a kerosene stove for heat. We didn’t use binoculars. All the nearby homes had blackout curtains, so visibility at night was almost 100%.

When you spotted something all you did was pick up the phone. No dialing or nothing. I forget the name of the unit stationed in Roosevelt’s house [the 240th Military Police Battalion, according to the National Park Service], but someone from the unit picked up the phone. And they said to report and not worry if it’s a false alarm. Thank goodness they were all false alarms.

Did you serve throughout high school?

The Ground Observer Corps was deactivated in May 1944, and on May 29, 1944, I got my induction notice. Two weeks later I would have graduated. They did not let me graduate with my class, but that was okay.

Sounds like you wanted a change.

I could have been deferred — farm work was considered essential — but I didn’t like the farm at all. I went to school every single day and did well. But I used to get on the bus and watch my classmates playing football, baseball, while I had to go home.

Everybody was eager to go. Plus, if you were a male 18 years old and healthy, you couldn’t be seen walking the streets. I went from Fort Dix to Fort Bragg, North Carolina. I was in the artillery — 240 mm M1 howitzers. We trained with the 82nd Division, but we were going to Europe as replacements for soldiers killed or wounded.

When did you deploy?

Six thousand guys left on the Aquitania [a former British cruise liner] that December. We went across in five days, landed in Glasgow, Scotland, then went by train to Southampton. We boarded amphibious craft, each of us carrying two gigantic duffel bags. It was snowing and cold crossing the Channel. We got dumped out in 2 feet of water on the coast near Le Havre in Normandy on New Year’s Day 1945.

First, we stayed overnight in a brick building with no heat. All of us were freezing wet from the waist down. Finally, somebody located some laundry tubs, filled them with gasoline and lit the fumes for heat. Guys stood around the tubs stripped from the waist down, trying to get their clothes dry. At about 3 o’clock the next morning, we hiked 2 or 3 miles to board a train of cattle cars. The cars had been used for livestock — you can imagine the smell. Someone threw in bales of hay before closing the doors. To keep the snow out, we picked the bales apart and stuffed straw into the big cracks in the floorboards and sides.

We received our orders when we reached a replacement depot just outside Paris. I got assigned to the 575th Field Artillery Battalion down in what was called the Colmar Pocket, in Alsace. Most people have never even heard of it: the French part of the Battle of the Bulge. The French were getting murdered; they didn’t have a piece of artillery.

On January 3, 10 of us got off a train on the outskirts of the Pocket. They took us in at night. The battalion had only been there a couple days before I arrived. They hadn’t even set up the guns. First, I was assigned to headquarters. I was pretty good at typing from high school; I knew Morse code, and I had trained on the German decoding machine at Fort Bragg. The soldier doing those things had been killed, so I got busy with that until I got wounded.

When did that happen?

A couple weeks after I got there. Five of us in a jeep were on reconnaissance, looking for a place to set up a gun. We went down a wooded road. The Germans must have been watching us: they put out a mine. We hit the tripwire when driving back. The blast blew the jeep 20 feet in the air, and when it came down, three of the guys were crushed underneath. The driver and I were thrown clear and survived.

That might have been your ticket home.

I was in a field hospital for two weeks. After that, I went full-time on the guns. I guess I did well because I wasn’t sent back to headquarters. Every two or three days, we moved to a different location, always traveling at night. Half the time you didn’t know where you were.

In February we started to get into mud. We had more trouble in the mud than we did in the snow. We had gigantic tracked vehicles called prime movers that we used for towing heavy artillery. Each gun weighed more than 20 tons. The vehicles were so heavy that when we eventually crossed the Rhine, we went across a pontoon bridge, driving between flags in two feet of water. We didn’t know where the pontoons were.

Once across the Rhine, where did your unit go?

We just went on to German cities like Mannheim, Stuttgart, Munich. Sometimes we were shelling cathedrals and churches — which I’m not proud of — but the Germans were using church towers for observation. War is war.

How long before you finally went home?

I was overseas a year and a half. When the war was over, Gen. George S. Patton wanted a headquarters in Heidelberg, Germany; I was in his headquarters in late 1945 when he got killed. I came back home, exactly to the day, two years from the time I was inducted. I hadn’t realized it, but they were holding a rural letter carrier job for me at the Staatsburg post office. I got home, I think, on a Friday. And Monday morning I went to work at the post office.

DAMASCUS, Syria — President Donald Trump said Saturday that “there will be very serious retaliation” after two U.S. service members and one American civilian were killed in an attack in Syria that the United States blames on the Islamic State group.

“This was an ISIS attack against the U.S., and Syria, in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them,” he said in a social media post.

The American president told reporters at the White House that Syria’s president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, was “devastated by what happened” and stressed that Syria was fighting alongside U.S. troops. Trump, in his post, said al-Sharaa was “extremely angry and disturbed by this attack.”

U.S. Central Command said three service members were wounded in an ambush Saturday by a lone IS member in central Syria. Trump said the three “seem to be doing pretty well.” The U.S. military said the gunman was killed.

The attack on U.S. troops in Syria was the first with fatalities since the fall of President Bashar Assad a year ago.

“There will be very serious retaliation,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform.

The Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Sean Parnell, said the civilian killed was a U.S. interpreter. Parnell said the attack targeted soldiers involved in the ongoing counter-terrorism operations in the region and is under active investigation.

The shooting took place near historic Palmyra, according to the state-run SANA news agency, which earlier said two members of Syria’s security force and several U.S. service members had been wounded. The casualties were taken by helicopter to the al-Tanf garrison near the border with Iraq and Jordan.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the attacker was a member of the Syrian security force.

Syria’s Interior Ministry spokesman Nour al-Din al-Baba said a gunman linked to IS opened fire at the gate of a military post. He added that Syrian authorities are looking into whether the gunman was an IS member or only carried its extreme ideology. He denied reports that suggested that the attacker was a security member.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on X: “Let it be known, if you target Americans — anywhere in the world — you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you.”

The U.S. has hundreds of troops deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting IS.

The U.S. had no diplomatic relations with Syria under Assad, but ties have warmed since the fall of the five-decade Assad family rule. Al-Sharaa, made a historic visit to Washington last month where he held talks with Trump. It was the first White House visit by a Syrian head of state since the Middle Eastern country gained independence from France in 1946 and came after the U.S. lifted sanctions imposed on Syria during the Assads’ rule.

Al-Sharaa led the rebel forces that toppled Bashar Assad in December 2024 and was named the country’s interim leader in January. Al-Sharaa once had ties to al-Qaida and had a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head.

Last month, Syria joined the international coalition fighting against the IS as Damascus improves its relations with Western countries following the ouster of Assad when insurgents captured his seat of power in Damascus.

IS was defeated on the battlefield in Syria in 2019 but the group’s sleeper cells still carry out deadly attacks in the country. The United Nations says the group still has between 5,000 and 7,000 fighters in Syria and Iraq.

U.S. troops, which have maintained a presence in different parts of Syria — including Al-Tanf garrison in the central province of Homs — to train other forces as part of a broad campaign against IS, have been targeted in the past. One of the deadliest attacks occurred in 2019 in the northern town of Manbij when a blast killed two U.S. service members and two American civilians as well as others from Syria while conducting a patrol.

Mroue reported from Beirut and Seung Min Kim from Washington.

Editor’s note: U.S. Central Command said two U.S. troops and one U.S. civilian were killed in the attack, in addition to three service members being injured. Find an updated story here.

Shots were fired at Syrian and U.S. forces on Saturday during a visit by American troops to a historic central town, leaving several wounded, Syria’s state media and a war monitor said.

The shooting took place near Palmyra, according to the state-run SANA news agency, which said two members of Syria’s security force and several U.S. service members were wounded. The injured were taken by helicopters to the al-Tanf garrison near the border with Iraq and Jordan.

SANA said the attacker was killed, without providing further details.

A U.S. defense official told The Associated Press that they are aware of the reports and did not have any information to provide immediately. The official spoke on condition of anonymity for not being authorized to speak to the media.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said at least three Syrian security members were wounded as well as several Americans. It added that the attacker was a member of the Syrian security force.

The U.S. has hundreds of troops deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting the Islamic State group.

Last month, Syria joined the international coalition fighting against the IS as Damascus improves its relations with Western countries following last year’s fall of President Bashar Assad when insurgents captured his seat of power in Damascus.

The U.S. had no diplomatic relations with Syria under Assad, but ties have warmed since the fall of the five-decade Assad family rule. The interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, made a historic visit to Washington last month where he held talks with President Donald Trump.

IS was defeated in Syria in 2019 but the group’s sleeper cells still carry out deadly attacks in the country. The United Nations says the group still has between 5,000 and 7,000 fighters in Syria and Iraq.

U.S. troops, which have maintained a presence in different parts of Syria — including Al-Tanf garrison in the central province of Homs — to train other forces as part of a broad campaign against IS, have been targeted in the past. One of the deadliest attacks occurred in 2019 in the northern town of Manbij when a blast killed two U.S. service members and two American civilians as well as others from Syria while conducting a patrol.

World War II spared no one and nothing — even American football.

In 1943, the AP Top 20 college football rankings were littered with the usual names — Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas. Yet hovering at the No. 2 spot is a team long-forgotten, even by most football fanatics: the U.S. Navy’s Iowa Pre-Flight team.

During WWII, military training camps fielded their own teams, writes The New York Times. The war had shuttered many university programs as service-aged men swelled the ranks of the military.

As service academies like West Point and Annapolis benefited from the influx of talent, so, too, did the training camp teams.

Older players, some of them former professionals from the likes of the Chicago Bears and New York Giants, suited up for teams like Great Lakes Navy, Del Monte Pre-Flight and March Field. By 1943, four of those teams were in the AP Top 10, beating out storied football programs.

Among the standouts was Iowa Pre-Flight’s fullback, Dick Todd, a four-year veteran of the Washington Redskins (now Commanders) who would go on to play for the team four more years after the war. The team’s halfback Frank Maznicki had played for the Chicago Bears a year prior, and college athletes who had previously played for schools such as Marquette, Michigan State, Iowa, Pittsburg and Illinois also suited up.

The team was so stacked that Perry Schwartz, an end for the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1938 to 1942, never started a game.

While based at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Navy’s Iowa Pre-Flight was a separate team from the university’s own Hawkeyes squad.

Known as the Seahawks, the team was coached by former Missouri coach Lt. Don Faurot, originator of the Split-T formation. Bud Wilkinson, who went on to become a coaching legend at Oklahoma, was his assistant, according to the New York Times.

Late in the 1943 college season only two teams remained undefeated: Iowa Pre-Flight and Notre Dame. And as their November matchup loomed, the eyes of a weary nation focused, just for a moment, on a battle playing out stateside.

On Nov. 20, 1943, as Col. David Shoup was reporting on Tarawa, “Casualties many; percentage of dead not known; combat efficiency: We are winning,” No. 1 Notre Dame was suiting up to play the second-ranked Iowa Pre-Flight team.

Although a weaker schedule, injuries and the last-minute transfer of six players, including its starting quarterback, Jack Williams, to other bases had the undefeated Seahawks heading into the game against the Fighting Irish a 20-point underdog, Notre Dame head coach, Frank Leahy, was rightfully skeptical.

“Even though recent personnel changes have ruined the Seahawk line-up,” reads a 1943 New York Times article, “Frank Leahy sees nothing except fiendish specters of defeat.”

In addition, the pair of undefeated teams would also solve, wrote famed sportswriter Allison Danzig, “whether a top-flight college football team is in the same class with a crack professional club.”

“The laboratory will be the Notre Dame stadium,” Danzig continued. “The guinea pigs will be the Fighting Irish and the Seahawks of the Iowa Navy Pre-Flight School.”

From the jump, Notre Dame fought from behind against what Danzig termed “a thunderous onslaught [from] a combination of former professional and Big Ten college players.”

In the opening two quarters, the Seahawks took a 7-0 lead over the undefeated Fighting Irish, with seven first downs to the latter’s two.

The score evened after a 65-yard touchdown run from the opening kickoff, but from there the game stalled until the fourth quarter when the Seahawks, despite its quarterback suffering from a broken jaw, cashed in on a Notre Dame fumble.

A missed kick, however, put the game back within Notre Dame’s reach and they quickly capitalized on it, with Creighton Miller, one of the “chief artisans” of the victory, sneaking in from the Seahawk’s 6-yard line for a tying touchdown.

Kicker Fred Earley knocked in the extra point, sealing a 14-13 victory for Notre Dame.

“Any doubts as to the majestic stature of the Notre Dame football team of 1943 melted today in the crucible of one of the great gridiron games of this or any other season,” Danzig concluded.

Yet Notre Dame’s storied season would suffer a defeat in its final game at the hands of another service team, the Great Lakes Bluejackets.

The Bluejackets would ultimately finish No. 6 in the AP rankings for the season, due to its two previous losses. Notre Dame, with its one, hung on to its No. 1 ranking and eked out a national championship.

Iowa Pre-Flight would finish second in the rankings and by the end of 1945, all service teams were disbanded.

The team has been largely forgotten, but perhaps that’s fitting for the men, writes Danzig, who played “for the sheer enjoyment of taking and giving someone a physical going-over.”

The 2025 Army-Navy game kicks off Saturday, Dec. 13, at 3 p.m. EST at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore, Maryland, and will be broadcast on CBS.

The U.S. Military Academy and U.S. Naval Academy football teams will face off in their 126th matchup Saturday at this year’s Army-Navy game, a storied rivalry that always bring the fireworks and a competitive flare.

The Navy Midshipmen have jumped out to a 9-2 record, good for third place in the American Conference, while the Army Black Knights are hovering above .500, with a record of 6-5.

Regardless, the winner takes home the Commander-in-Chief Trophy, an accomplishment either side would love to flaunt in spite of the other.

But for either team to win, they’ll have to lean on their strengths.

Here are the keys to the game that will provide a route to victory for the Midshipmen or Black Knights.

Offense

The Midshipmen’s rushing offense is impressive, ranking first in Football Bowl Subdivision college football with an average of 298.4 yards per game. Their passing, however, ranks 132nd, with the team only accruing an average of 136.4 yards per game.

Meanwhile, the Black Knights’ rushing attack isn’t too far off, ranking 5th in college football with an average of 256.9 yards per game. The team accounts for far less passing yards than the Midshipmen, however, only throwing for 78.3 yards per game on average.

Both teams have a record of possessing the ball for long periods of time.

The Black Knights rank No. 1 in time of possession in college football with an average of 35:16 per game, while the Midshipmen rank 17th with an average of 32:20 per game.

It’s likely that whoever dominates the time of possession will hold a distinctive advantage over the other.

Navy pays homage to USS Constitution for this year’s Army-Navy uniform

Overall, the Midshipmen have a more experienced, balanced offense, with senior quarterback Blake Horvath — who led the Midshipmen to victory over the Black Knights last year in the Army-Navy game — leading the charge.

Horvath is the first quarterback in Midshipmen history to post back-to-back seasons with 1,000 yards passing and 1,000 yards rushing.

On the year, Horvath has rushed for 1,040 yards and 14 touchdowns, and passed for 1,390 yards with nine touchdowns and five interceptions.

Meanwhile, junior Army quarterback Cale Hellums — who only got the starting job in the sixth game of the season after Dewayne Coleman was sidelined with injuries — has impressed in his short time playing. At 5-foot-10 and 205 pounds, Hellums leads his team with 1,078 rushing yards and 15 rushing touchdowns. He has thrown for 504 yards, three touchdowns and two interceptions.

Defense

Neither team has a particularly potent defense.

The Midshipmen’s overall defense ranks 92nd in college football — allowing an average of 398.7 yards per game — and 57th in rushing with an average of 143.2 yards per game.

Meanwhile, the Black Knights have a better overall defense, ranked 56th, but still give up an average of 357 yards per game. Their rushing defense ranks 63rd, allowing 147.1 yards per game.

An interesting wrinkle that will undoubtedly play out during the game — the Black Knights allow opponents to convert third downs 44.9% of the time, ranking 123rd in that category. That porous protection will have to contend with a Navy offense that converts 49.6 of their third downs, which ranks 12th in that category in college football.

What else to watch

Navy racks up a good amount of penalties, averaging 54.8 penalty yards per game, while Army is much more disciplined, netting only 24.1 penalty yards on average per game.

The Midshipmen’s star senior nose guard Landon Robinson, who was named the American Conference Defensive Player of the Year and a First-Team All-American by Sports Illustrated and USA Today, has had a monster campaign, totaling 54 tackles, 8.5 tackles for a loss, 6.5 sacks and seven hurries.

The Black Knights’ senior linebacker Andon Thomas is no slouch either, totaling 96 tackles this year.

Scoreboard

At the end of the day, all that matters for each team is notching more points than the other when the clock strikes triple zeros.

How the Black Knights or Midshipmen accomplish that feat is up to them, but it would appear that controlling the time of possession and running the ball as much as possible will net an advantage over the other.

The Army-Navy game kicks off Saturday, Dec. 13, at 3 p.m. EST at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore, Maryland, and will be broadcast on CBS.

DORAL, Fla. — A U.S. Navy admiral who oversees military operations in Latin America handed off command responsibilities Friday as scrutiny increases over the Trump administration’s deadly strikes on alleged drug boats in the region.

Adm. Alvin Holsey has retired one year into a posting that typically lasts three to four years and transferred leadership duties to his top military deputy, Air Force Lt. Gen. Evan Pettus, during a ceremony at U.S. Southern Command headquarters near Miami.

In farewell remarks, Holsey did not mention the military operations or the reasons for his early retirement. But he urged his successor to uphold longstanding partnerships in the region by standing firmly behind the shared values of democracy and support for the rule of law.

“To be a trusted partner, we must be credible, present and engaged,” Holsey said.

Holsey’s shock retirement was announced by the Pentagon in October, over a month into the Trump administration’s strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean that have killed at least 87 people. With the campaign facing growing scrutiny by Congress, Holsey briefed key lawmakers earlier this week.

Long-term replacement for Holsey hasn’t yet been named

The ceremony Friday was more subdued than past retirements, held outdoors amid a small crowd of mostly Southern Command staff and without Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, because President Donald Trump has yet to nominate Holsey’s replacement.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made no mention of the military operations in Latin America as he thanked Holsey for his 37 years of service. Caine referred to Holsey as a “stoic” leader and “quiet professional” who always leads with his heart and head.

“It’s never been about you, it’s been about people, it’s been about others,” Caine said. “You’ve never said ‘I’ in all the conversations we’ve had. You’ve always said ‘we.’ … The impact you’ve had will last for a long time.”

Holsey is departing as Congress is scrutinizing the boat attacks, including one that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of an initial strike. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Hegseth and other top officials have given classified briefings on Capitol Hill this week.

Holsey also spoke this week to key lawmakers overseeing the U.S. military by classified video call. Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said afterward that Holsey answered senators’ questions but that “there are still many questions to be answered.” Reed later added that Holsey did not give a reason for his retirement other than saying it was a personal decision.

Boat strike scrutiny increases

Experts in the rules of warfare, human rights groups and even some of Trump’s allies in Congress have questioned the legality of the attacks on those accused of ferrying drugs. For decades, they were arrested at sea by the Coast Guard and brought to the U.S. for criminal prosecution.

The 22 known strikes against alleged drug-smuggling vessels are being supported by a giant flotilla of U.S. warships, attack helicopters, thousands of troops and even the nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier.

Trump’s Republican administration has defended its aggressive tactics, designating several drug cartels in Latin America as foreign terrorist organizations and declaring that the U.S. is in armed conflict with those criminal organizations, relying on a legal argument that gained traction after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The campaign has ramped up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the U.S. In a sharp escalation Wednesday, U.S. forces seized a sanctioned oil tanker that the Trump administration has accused of smuggling illicit crude. Sale of that oil on global energy markets is critical to Maduro’s grip on power.

Maduro has insisted the real purpose of the U.S. military operations is to force him from office.

Holsey’s departure is the latest in a long line of sudden retirements and firings that have befallen the military’s top ranks since Hegseth took charge of the Pentagon.

A native of rural Fort Valley, Georgia, whose father and several uncles served in Vietnam, Holsey relinquished his command to Pettus to a soulful rendition of “Midnight Train to Georgia.”

Pettus, a fighter jet pilot with combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, had been serving as Holsey’s top deputy since late 2024. However, it’s unclear how long the Arkansas native will remain in the job. Whomever Trump nominates must be confirmed by the Senate.

The Defense Department should improve information sharing among different services and offices to improve the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft’s safety and reduce dangerous or fatal accidents, the Government Accountability Office said Friday.

In its report, “Osprey Aircraft: Additional Oversight and Information Sharing Would Improve Safety Efforts,” the GAO said Osprey program stakeholders — including its Joint Program Office and the services that fly it — have not routinely shared information on important areas, including hazard and accident reporting, aircraft knowledge and emergency procedures, and maintenance data on parts and components commonly used across the different types of V-22.

As a result, known problems with the Osprey have remained unresolved for years and in some cases at least a decade, the GAO said.

Without setting an oversight structure that clearly defines roles and responsibilities for fixing the Osprey’s known safety risks, the report said, the Pentagon cannot be sure those problems will be fully resolved.

The Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy have a fleet of more than 400 Ospreys, which can take off and land like a helicopter, and then switch to forward flight like an airplane. This makes them ideally suited to take off and land from aircraft carriers, as well as for transporting special operations forces to and from austere environments where typical runways may not exist.

The aircraft has had above-average accident rates over the years, and some high-profile and tragic crashes that killed service members.

The GAO said the Marine Corps and Air Force rates of serious accidents in the Osprey over the last decade was, in nearly all years, higher than the services’ overall fixed-wing and rotary-wing accident rates.

That included four fatal accidents since 2022 that killed 20 service members, according to the report. The GAO said the Marine Corps and Air Force both saw serious accident rates in their Osprey variants rise in 2023 and 2024. Serious accidents are class A and B mishaps that result in death, permanent disability, extensive hospitalization, at least $600,000 in property damage or a destroyed aircraft.

Between 2015 and 2024, the only year serious Osprey accident rates were lower than average was in 2019, and even then only for the Marine Corps, the GAO said.

Most serious Osprey accidents were reportedly caused by airframe or engine component failure, or human error during flight or maintenance, according to the report. Materiel failures included problems with the Osprey’s proprotor gearbox clutches, which lead to lurching “hard clutch engagements” and could endanger flights, as well as vibration and chipping in the gearboxes and erosion of rotor blades.

The GAO said accident investigators concluded that in two of the four recent fatal Osprey accidents, a combined hard clutch engagement and catastrophic failure of proprotor gearbox components were factors.

Some Ospreys have also had problems with their engines rapidly losing or surging power during reduced visibility landings when flying over sand and dust.

In one instance, a Marine Corps Osprey crashed in Hawaii during a May 2015 training flight after sand was sucked into one of its engines while landing, causing the engine to stall. Two Marines died in that crash, and another 20 were injured.

But the GAO said the stakeholders charged with running the Osprey program, including the V-22 Joint Program Office and military services that fly them, have not fully identified or analyzed those problems, or responded with solutions to fix those procedural or materiel safety issues. The services and Osprey JPO had closed 45 risk assessments at the time of the GAO’s review, but 34 remained open, including eight serious — and potentially catastrophic — risks that had been open for a median period of 10 years.

Another 18 risks were deemed medium, and either potentially catastrophic or critical, and had been open for a median duration of nearly nine years, according to the report.

The GAO recommended that the defense secretary ensure the Navy and Air Force secretaries, along with the top generals in the Marine Corps, Air Force, Navy and Air Force Special Operations Command, work together to improve the joint Osprey program’s process for identifying, analyzing and responding to all safety risks.

This should include creating an oversight structure that clearly defines roles and responsibilities for resolving safety risks promptly and periodically reviewing efforts to fix them, the GAO said.

The GAO also recommended those top officials establish a routine system, such as a regularly occurring multiservice conference, to share information on the Osprey and emergency procedures. And the officials should conduct a comprehensive review of maintenance guidance and inspection procedures and update them as needed so Osprey units are using a system to track aircraft components, the GAO said.

The Pentagon agreed with the GAO’s recommendations and said it would take action to incorporate them into its Osprey policies and procedures.

On the heels of 12 major mishaps in the last four years, the military’s first tiltrotor aircraft program must take “immediate and decisive action” to avoid more loss and tragedy, a new comprehensive review released Friday by the U.S. Navy finds.

The V-22 Osprey, which the Navy uses for aircraft carrier onboard delivery missions, is overdue for a midlife upgrade, spending far too much on unscheduled maintenance and contending with undertrained maintainers — all of which spell increased risk for a platform that has faced intense scrutiny since its earliest days in the air. The 33-page review recommends the establishment of a readiness and safety steering board to report annually to top officials on the Osprey’s status; initiation of the overdue midlife upgrade; and changes to establish a “proactive safety system” to identify and address mechanical issues before mishaps occur.

“When the V-22 Enterprise does not actively manage risks with the potential for catastrophic outcomes, the risks compound, increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic event that, if left unaddressed, will ultimately occur,” the investigation concluded.

The Navy’s review — and a simultaneously released Government Accountability Office report — follow a November 2023 crash of an Air Force CV-22 Osprey that killed eight troops, ultimately attributed to a gear box failure. In the dozen mishaps since 2022 involving Marine Corps and Air Force personnel, four Ospreys have been destroyed and 20 personnel have been killed.

The review determined that the Osprey is “accumulating safety risk” due to lagging timelines to fix identified problems; failure to follow airworthiness and flight safety procedures; missing airworthiness standards for some risks; and challenges related to differing safety standards and priorities between the three services that fly the Osprey. It also found the Osprey has suffered in readiness due to a failure to implement best practices across the services, persistent “reliability issues” and challenges in managing and delivering aircraft and parts inventory.

While defenders of the V-22 have accurately pointed out that the aircraft, at least in the Marine Corps, has a lower mishap rate than fleet averages, the report highlights other concerning ways that the Osprey is an outlier. The V-22, it found, has the second-highest number of “catastrophic” risks of any naval aviation platform, meaning components at risk of failure with catastrophic outcomes. Parts at risk are also 70% older on the Osprey than on other Navy planes, it found.

“As the first and only military tiltrotor aircraft, it remains the most aero-mechanically complex aircraft in service and continues to face unresolved legacy material, safety, and technical challenges,” the investigation notes.

In maintenance concerns, the Osprey is again at odds with other platforms, requiring 100% more unscheduled maintenance than the Navy average and requiring about 22 maintenance man-hours per flight hour, compared with about 12 for other aircraft.

“Despite numerous initiatives aimed at improving procedural compliance, most efforts to date have not led to significant improvements in safety outcomes,” investigators found. “A critical gap remains in the form of specific, measurable, and enforceable action plans, complete with clear timelines and accountable owners, to address the root causes of non-compliance, improve procedural adherence, or mitigate the effects of non-compliance at the enterprise-level.”

Among recommendations already being implemented are a retrofit of prop-rotor gear boxes to address identified risks; the development of risk mitigation plans; and a midlife upgrade, which is listed as “in-work,” with no estimated completion date. Establishment of new proficiency standards for maintainers is also underway across services. Other recommendations, like the establishment of a readiness and safety steering board, have yet to be started.

Anthony Krockel, a retired Marine Corps colonel who flew the Osprey from 2010 to 2018 and came to its defense earlier this year, saying its record “was not a safety outlier,” told Military Times he saw additional problems contributing to the aircraft’s woes.

While he noted that the aircraft was full of sensors and that issues could arise from crews’ failure to address the equivalent of “check engine lights” on degrading parts, he also said the Osprey had a track record of parts that failed well before their anticipated service lives were up.

“If something was supposed to last, you know, 10,000 hours before it is being replaced, it’s lasting, like, 2,000 hours,” Krockel said. “And so that’s what’s driving these really high unscheduled maintenance rates.”

That, in turn, he said, had a “cascading effect” on maintenance backlogs.

“So now you have to spend time that wasn’t scheduled on the backs of these Marines to fix the plane and, oh, by the way, because these components are breaking more often, you’re depleting the spares inventory much faster than was originally anticipated,” he said. “And so now you don’t have any spares on the shelf because they’re being used systemically, higher than originally budgeted for.”

Krockel said he’d still like to see a thorough review take place of the top 10 “degraders to readiness” involving the V-22, including the parts that most frequently failed.

“Some of them are technically challenging to fix. Some of them are logistics challenges,” he said. “So there’s larger challenges, but if you get those top 10 degraders fixed and get the aircraft to higher mission capable rates, then everybody wins.”

Service members will see a 4.2% bump, on average, in their monthly Basic Allowance for Housing as of Jan. 1, defense officials announced Thursday.

The average increase for 2026 is lower than the 2025 average of 5.4%. Actual amounts can vary widely by military housing areas, and some service members may see a decrease in their monthly housing allowance. But in areas where there is a decrease, service members won’t be penalized. They’ll continue to receive the same amount they received in 2025 for as long as they are stationed there.

In their announcement, officials said they expect to pay an estimated $29.9 billion in housing allowances for about 1 million service members in 2026.

To set BAH rates each year, the Defense Department collects rental housing cost data for 299 military housing areas in the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii. They calculate rates for each pay grade, both with and without dependents, based on housing choices of civilians with comparable incomes.

In Norfolk, Virginia, for example, according to the DOD BAH calculator, an E-5 with dependents will receive $2,430 a month in BAH, an increase of 4.5%, or $105, over the $2,325 a month received in 2025. An O-1 without dependents in that area would receive $2,022 a month, an increase of $45 a month, or 2.2% , received in 2025.

Troops can use DOD’s BAH rate lookup tool to search for their 2026 rate by their ZIP code and rank.

Setting BAH rates includes collecting information on rental prices and utilities, such as electricity, heat and water/sewer. Officials determine the costs for six housing profiles, based on the type of dwelling and number of bedrooms, in each of those housing areas.

Officials use data from the services and local military installation housing offices, commercial subscription rental cost databases, U.S. Census Bureau survey data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index and online rental listing websites.

With questions raised about the calculation of BAH in recent years, Congress has weighed in on the issue, calling for more transparency and a study of alternatives such as using artificial intelligence and machine learning in calculating BAH.

In the proposed fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization bill passed by the House on Wednesday, and awaiting a vote from the Senate, lawmakers have included a provision requiring DOD to develop a clear, accessible document that explains how BAH rates are determined.

The proposed NDAA also would require DOD to enter into an agreement to study alternative methods of rate calculations, to include reviewing commuting times and distances service members face, and the affordability of housing in at least 15 of the 299 military housing areas. Officials would look at whether the monthly BAH rates accurately reflect housing prices, and whether it’s sufficient for military families to get adequate and affordable housing in those areas. The study would need to be completed no later than three years after DOD enters into the agreement.

Many service members have been hit hard by increased housing costs over the last few years. In 2023, defense officials increased BAH rates by an average of 12.1%, the largest year-over-year jump in BAH in at least the previous 15 years.

The Government Accountability Office has reported that the Pentagon needs to improve the way it calculates troops’ housing allowances. Defense officials have been reviewing those procedures.