First lady Melania Trump and second lady Usha Vance made a rare joint appearance at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, on Wednesday to show appreciation to U.S. military members and their families ahead of the holiday season.

The first and second ladies took part in activities with military-connected children at the East Coast installation and its affiliated facility, Marine Corps Air Station New River.

There were Thanksgiving-themed art projects, and reading and writing lessons for elementary students, as well as artificial intelligence and technology seminars for high school students. There were also 2,000 care packages assembled by volunteers, ready to be distributed to deployed Marines.

“To every service member — thank you for standing watch so others can celebrate in peace,” the first lady said in an address to 1,600 active-duty Marines and their families. “To every military spouse and child — thank you for your strength and love. You serve our country, too.”

Trump has made the well-being of children a central theme of her tenure as first lady through her “Be Best” initiative, which focuses on their emotional, social and physical health.

Trump also used Wednesday’s visit to draw attention to the impact of AI on the military. The first lady appeared to broadly welcome those changes, though she acknowledged the challenges they pose.

“Technology is changing the art of war. Predictably, AI will alter war more profoundly than any technology since nuclear weapons,” she said. “The most significant change will be speed — speed in weaponry, decision-making, detection, attack and defense.”

“To win the AI war, we must train our next generation, for it is America’s students who will lead the Marine Corps in the future,” she implored.

On display was the Marine Corps AH-1Z Viper, a modern attack helicopter known for its lethality. Nearby was a CH-53K King Stallion, a multi-mission heavy-lift helicopter. An array of light armored vehicles and amphibious combat vehicles also lined the hangar as the wife of the commander in chief spoke.

The second lady also took the stage and smiled as she mentioned her husband, JD Vance, the first vice president of the United States to have served as a Marine, saying it was an honor to be “around the corner from Cherry Point,” where he was last stationed.

“Today, I’ve had the privilege of spending time with your families at the elementary and high schools on base,” Usha Vance said. “At a time when children around the country are struggling, it is so heartening to see thriving schools and engaged students,” she added, pointing to her work in the White House to expand access to literacy.

“Military families are truly a model for our country,” she said.

They started calling it the “Nuremberg defense” when lawyers for Lt. William Calley at his court martial argued that he was only following orders in the March 1968 slaughter of hundreds of Vietnamese in what became known as the My Lai Massacre.

George Latimer, Calley’s main lawyer, cited Nuremberg in his summation, telling the court, “I could hardly stand here and tell you in good conscience that people, like at Nuremberg, could be excused or justified” in mass murder by claiming they were acting on the orders of a superior, according to court documents.

“But I think when you put untrained troops out in areas and they are told to do certain things, they have a right to rely on the judgment and the expertise [of their leaders],” Latimer said. “Then you are bound to give credence in effect to orders from their company commander.”

The argument for Calley, in what was the most high-profile court martial to come out of the Vietnam War, did not hold up. It also didn’t work at the end of World War II for the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, including Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who cheated the hangman by taking cyanide on the night he was to be executed.

Calley had taken the stand in his own defense to state that Capt. Ernest Medina, his company commander, had told him to kill everybody in the village. They were all Viet Cong or sympathizers, Calley said he was told, and Medina’s order was to “waste them.” Medina was later tried at court martial and acquitted.

Calley said he had learned in training “that all orders were to be assumed legal, that the soldier’s job was to carry out any order given him to the best of his ability.”

His understanding was that failure to follow orders could result in the death penalty, Calley said. The jury deliberated for nearly 80 hours over 13 days in 1971 before finding Calley guilty of premeditated murder.

Specification 2 of the charges stated that “at My Lai 4, Quang Ngai Province, Republic of South Vietnam, on or about 16 March 1968, with premeditation,” Calley used rifle fire to murder no fewer than 70 men and women of various ages.

Specification 4 stated that one of the victims murdered by Calley was two years old. Some estimates put the total death toll in My Lai at more than 500.

Calley was sentenced to life in prison. President Richard Nixon intervened in the case to order Calley’s removal from the stockade to house arrest at his Fort Benning apartment.

His sentence was later reduced to 10 years by Army Secretary Howard Calloway and he was paroled in 1974.

The case against Calley had its direct underpinnings in the Nuremberg trial of 22 defendants, according to Gary Solis, a Marine company commander in Vietnam who later had a long career as a judge advocate general, serving alternately as a military prosecutor, a defense lawyer and a judge.

“I believe that is the key result of Nuremberg — obedience to orders is no longer a defense to war crimes. That was not new Nuremberg law that was being created in the courtroom but rather new enforcement,” Solis told Military Times.

“That’s the basis on which they were convicted. That was new enforcement — the unspoken awareness on the part of civilized nations” of the duty to hold war criminals to account, he added.

The legacy of Nuremberg is now reflected in the U.S. Manual of Courts-Martial, which states that service members have a duty to disobey an order that “a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal.”

Nov. 20 marks the 80th anniversary of the trial’s start at Nuremberg’s Palace of Justice.

Jackson faces off against Göring

On Aug. 8, 1945, the U.S., France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Britain signed the London Agreement and Charter, also known as the Nuremberg Charter, which set up International Military Tribunal at the Palace of Justice in the German city of Nuremberg to try Nazi leaders on charges of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, the crime of aggressive war and conspiracy to commit the first three crimes.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson, named by President Harry Truman as chief prosecutor in the trial, asserted that the Charter represented the first time that four victors in war had come to an agreement on “the principle of individual responsibility for the crime of attacking the international peace.”

On Oct. 21, 1945, with 22 defendants assembled in the dock, about 400 visitors in the gallery and 323 accredited members of the press in attendance, Jackson began the trial with an opening statement of surpassing eloquence.

“The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility,” Jackson said. “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.”

History would give righteous affirmation to the fact that “four great nations, flush with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason,” Jackson added.

The trial proceeded with an enormous amount of documentation entered into the record on the crimes of the defendants and the playing of gut-wrenching films of the liberation of the death camps by the U.S. Army Signal Corps.

In his 2025 film adaptation, “Nuremberg” director James Vanderbilt chose to focus on the interplay between the Army psychiatrist Douglas M. Kelley, played by Rami Malek, and Göring, played by Russell Crowe in a riveting performance.

Kelley’s job was to determine the mental fitness of the defendants to stand trial. The movie, however, has him coming repeatedly to Göring’s jail cell to debate the ethics of the Third Reich. At one point in the film, Malek as Kelley tells Göring “Let’s talk about Hitler. I’m curious” about what made people follow him. Crowe as Göring replied, “He made us feel German again.”

The movie also has Göring showing his contempt for the allies by telling Kelley, “You won and we lost, not because you are morally superior. In the end, you know what sets you apart from us — nothing.”

Additionally, it depicts Jackson breaking down in his cross examination of Göring only to be rescued at the last minute by David Maxwell-Fyfe, the British prosecutor, while Kelley watches in dismay from the front row of the court.

None of that happened, according to John Q. Barrett, the Benjamin N. Cardozo Professor of Law at St. John’s University and a biographer of Jackson.

Barrett, who was consulted on the movie by the producers, said that the cross examination of Göring took place in March 1946, but Kelley had returned to the states two months earlier in January.

“The movie is Hollywood and it’s fictional,” Barrett told Military Times in defending Jackson’s cross examination of Göring, although “it did have some low moments.”

There was a mistranslated document, and “Jackson had to eat that,” but there were also many authenticated documents and “many damning admissions” by Göring that established his guilt.

“They won the case,” Barrett said.

The actual transcript of the cross examination showed Jackson hammering at Göring on the will left by Adolf Hitler in his Berlin bunker before committing suicide.

“And there came a time in 1945 when Hitler made a will in Berlin whereby he turned over the presidency of the Reich to your co-defendant, Admiral [Karl] Dönitz,” Jackson said. “You know about that?”

“That is correct,” Göring replied. “I read of this will here.”

“And in making his will and turning over the government of Germany to Admiral Dönitz, I call your attention to this statement,” Jackson said. “‘Göring and [Gestapo chief Heinrich] Himmler, quite apart from their disloyalty to my person, have done immeasurable harm to the country and the whole nation by secret negotiations with the enemy which they conducted without my knowledge and against my wishes, and by illegally attempting to seize power in the state for themselves. And by that will he expelled you and Himmler from the party and from all offices of the state.’”

“I can only answer for myself,” Göring responded. “What Himmler did I do not know. I neither betrayed the Führer, nor did I at that time negotiate with a single foreign soldier. This will, or this final act of the Führer’s, is based on an extremely regrettable mistake, and one which grieves me deeply — that the Führer could believe in his last hours that I could ever be disloyal to him.

“It was all due to an error in the transmission of a radio report and perhaps to a misrepresentation which [Hitler’s private secretary Martin] Bormann gave the Führer. I myself never thought for a minute of taking over power illegally or of acting against the Führer in any way.”

Göring never wavered in his fealty to Hitler, and never apologized for being complicit in issuing and carrying out orders that led to the deaths of millions.

The contrast was striking between the unrepentant Nazi and what happened with former Lt. William Calley at age 66. At a Kiwanis club in Columbus, Georgia, in 2009, nearly 42 years after he led troops on a killing spree into the village of My Lai, Calley apologized for his part in the massacre.

“There is not a day that goes by that I do not feel remorse for what happened that day in My Lai,” Calley told members of the club, according to the Columbus, Georgia-based Ledger-Enquirer. “I feel remorse for the Vietnamese who were killed, for their families, for the American soldiers involved and their families. I am very sorry.”

Calley was then asked why, if Capt. Medina had indeed told him to kill all the villagers, he had obeyed what was clearly an unlawful order.

“If you are asking why I did not stand up to them when I was given the orders, I will have to say that I was a second lieutenant getting orders from my commander,” he said. “And I followed them — foolishly, I guess.”

Gray clouds hung low, and a steady drizzle dripped through the tall fir trees of the Hürtgen Forest along the German-Belgian border early on the morning of Thursday, Nov. 16, 1944. As sporadic artillery volleys thumped in the distance, batches of shivering German soldiers ventured from the forward foxholes and bunkers of Lt. Gen. Hans Schmidt’s 275th Infantry Division, scouting for signs of an expected American attack. Less than a mile away men of the 22nd U.S. Infantry’s rifle and weapons companies rolled up their blankets and ate breakfast.

Commanding the regiment was 42-year-old Colonel Charles T. “Buck” Lanham, a wiry, graying graduate of West Point’s Class of 1924 who led from the front and expected the same of subordinates. The 22nd was responsible for a three-mile front in the Hürtgen, a 50-square-mile inverted triangle of trees roughly bounded by the German towns of Aachen to the west, Düren to the east and Monschau to the south.

When all was ready shortly after noon on November 16, the 22nd Infantry’s lead companies waded across the Roter Weh stream and began climbing a fir-clad ridge toward the Rur River plain some five miles ahead. Writer Ernest Hemingway, a friend of Lanham’s attached to the regiment as a correspondent for Collier’s, described the forthcoming campaign as “Passchendaele with tree bursts,” while historian John S. D. Eisenhower wrote that the battle “stands in history comparable to the Argonne in World War I.”

By the time it ended, most of Lanham’s men would be dead or wounded.

Stretching from mid-September 1944 to mid-December 1945, the Hürtgen Forest Campaign was part of a drive by Lt. Gen. Courtney Hodges’ U.S. First Army to cross the Rur River and capture its vital dams. The aim was an attack on the Aachen-Cologne axis, designed to close on the Rhine, as a first step toward the envelopment of Germany’s Ruhr Valley. The fighting was bitter because the two dams within the forest controlled the level of the Rur flowing north, and the Allies could not launch a broad assault across the Cologne plain to the Rhine as long as the enemy could threaten to flood them out.

The Allies were eager to breach the German border defenses, cross the Rhine and push into the Reich, but barring the way was the Rur and the woodland south of Aachen. The attack corridor was narrow and ill-suited to large-scale maneuvering. Yet Hodges and VII Corps commander Maj. Gen. J. Lawton Collins decided it was necessary to clear the Hürtgen Forest. “If we would have turned loose of the Hürtgen and let the Germans roam there,” Collins later explained, “they could have hit my flank.”

In their haste to enter Germany, the Americans underestimated this major obstacle — a strongly defended forest with dense trees, deep ravines and a dearth of roads. Collins and Hodges made no plans to capture the hydroelectric and flood-control dams just inside the forest. It would be too perilous to send troops across the Rur while the enemy controlled the dams. They were the key, but it would take a hard fight in the forest by several divisions before Hodges ordered an attack against them.

Within the forest, solidly dug in with 1,000 concealed guns and plenty of ammunition, were the men of General Erich Brandenberger’s Seventh Army, General Gustav-Adolf von Zangen’s Fifteenth Army and General Hasso von Manteuffel’s Fifth Panzer Army.

Maj. Gen. Maurice Rose’s 3rd Armored Division fought the initial engagements in the forest in September 1944. Following it were the 9th and 28th infantry divisions and numerous support elements, which hammered into the German pillboxes and bunkers with little success. Fed piecemeal into the cauldron behind them were reinforcing combat units, including the 1st, 8th, 78th and 83rd infantry divisions, the 5th Armored Division, the 505th and 517th parachute infantry regiments, and the 2nd Ranger Battalion, led by Lt. Col. James Earl Rudder of Pointe du Hoc D-Day fame.

The opening series of assaults were ill-fated and reflected little credit on senior American commanders. The primary objective, to protect Collins’ flank, was limited, and senior officers initially failed to recognize that control of the Rur dams would enable the Germans to flood out any advances north. The Hürtgen was valuable territory to the enemy, as its loss would threaten their entire defensive line west of the Rhine.

The American high command blundered by not proposing an easier avenue of approach southeast of the forest, allowing Hodges’ army to seize the dams and then clear the difficult terrain downriver. As undertaken, the offensive placed the Americans at a severe disadvantage in the forest. The Germans were able to delay and wear them down, buying critical time in which to prepare for the imminent Ardennes counteroffensive.

The Americans had stumbled into a tactical nightmare. Launching an attack on Oct. 6, two U.S. regiments fought for five days to advance scarcely a mile to the first forest clearing. It then took the 9th Infantry Division another 10 days of intensive action to push another mile. The 2-mile advance cost the Americans almost 5,000 casualties. More divisions, including Maj. Gen. Norman Cota’s long-suffering 28th, entered the maelstrom, and losses continued to mount.

The truculent Hodges did not press air attacks on the dams until late November, and they failed. The bombers hit their targets, but damage to the massive concrete structures was negligible. On Dec. 13, 1944, three months after the first GIs entered the Hürtgen Forest, the Americans finally launched a ground assault on the dams. But not until February 1945 did Hodges wrest control of the dams and with confidence place troops on the east bank of the Rur.

The campaign was strictly a foot soldier’s fight, as the dense woods, ravines, steep ridges, lack of roads, mud and weather—rain, fog, sleet, snow — negated U.S. superiority in armor and airpower. Only late in the battle could tanks be deployed, leaving it to the infantry to decide the outcome. In the end it was only sheer guts that propelled them through the forest. The campaign eventually absorbed elements of 17 divisions, resulted in dreadful casualties and sorely tested troop morale. It was one of the U.S. Army’s worst reverses in the European theater. GIs faced no greater odds under such harrowing conditions during the war than did the riflemen, machine gunners and mortar crews who battled through the Hürtgen Forest.

The “Double Deucers” had landed at Utah Beach with Maj. Gen. Raymond O. Barton’s 4th Infantry Division on June 6, 1944. Though the regiment suffered heavy casualties at Normandy, morale remained high, and it ranked as one of the U.S. Army’s best infantry units. Captain William S. Boice, one of the regimental chaplains, called the 22nd Infantry “a fighting machine trained to an efficiency not matched at any time during the war.”

Like many units engaged in the Hürtgen, the Double Deucers fought longer than normally expected, and few American combat outfits have ever experienced such severe casualties. Within three days the regiment lost its three battalion commanders, and the attrition rate among rifle company leaders was more than 300%. On the sixth day alone, the casualty rate was 50%, and by the night of Nov. 20, the rifle companies had lost more than 40% of their strength. Yet Lanham’s men fought on another 12 days.

Despite heavy artillery support, the regiment suffered 2,678 casualties while advancing just 6,000 yards during 18 continuous days of action. One soldier fell for every 2 yards gained. The unit’s casualty rate was a staggering 82% of its normal strength of 3,257 officers and men.

“The forest was a helluva eerie place to fight,” recalled Tech. Sgt. George Morgan, of the regiment’s 1st Battalion. “You can’t get all of the dead, because you can’t find them, and they stay there to remind the guys advancing as to what might hit them. You can’t get protection. You can’t see. You can’t get fields of fire. Artillery slashes the trees like a scythe. Everything is tangled. You can scarcely walk. Everybody is cold and wet, and the mixture of cold rain and sleet keeps falling. Then they jump off again, and soon there is only a handful of the old men left.”

Shells bursting in the crowns of 100-foot fir trees and mines erupting from the forest floor made life hellish for the American soldiers. A tree burst would send shrapnel and timber raining down, and foxholes proved scant shelter. Many GIs fell victim to their own artillery salvos.

Minefields proved especially tricky to navigate. Engineers might mark cleared paths with white tape only to have the wind carry it away or snow and mud obscure it. When U.S. armor did finally come up to support the infantry, the minefields and dense trees forced the tanks to stick mainly to the few narrow, muddy forest roads and logging trails. But the roads were also mined, and a single disabled tank or truck could block an entire column.

In addition to the enemy and harsh weather, the Americans battled exhaustion, hunger, pneumonia and trench foot. They lacked adequate boots and winter clothing, and many searched in vain for a dry place in which to sleep. Men in forward companies spent long nights half-frozen in open foxholes. And to the astonishment of British troops in the area, the GIs subsisted on cold C-rations.

“What surprised us,” one British officer recalled, “was the apparent indifference of the American commanders to the physical needs of their men in winter warfare. In these conditions, hot food once a day is as vital as ammunition. In the first few days the infantrymen of the 84th Division were expected to exist on packets of odd items such as eggs and bacon compressed into tablets, gum and candy, with nothing hot to drink. Men fight with greater cheerfulness even on the cheapest form of pig’s belly of transatlantic origin masquerading as bacon, if hot, or the bully beef and tea and biscuits which maintained the British. They also need a pair of dry socks every day.” (Trench foot alone sidelined hundreds of men of the 84th Infantry Division.)

Overcoats soaked with water and caked with frozen mud became too heavy to wear, and moisture seeped into radio sets, rendering them useless. The forest floor was so tangled with brush and debris that men collapsed under the physical strain of carrying weapons, bringing up supplies and evacuating the wounded.

The fighting was often at such close quarters that hand grenades proved the only decisive weapons. Booby traps in abandoned foxholes and ditches turned potential sanctuaries into graves for the unwary. The Germans even rigged explosives beneath American casualties. One seriously wounded GI lay motionless atop a booby trap for 72 hours, struggling to remain conscious so he could warn whoever might come to his rescue. Someone finally did, and the man survived. As the living strove to survive, the bloated, frozen dead — beyond all such caring — lay strewn in grotesque positions.

The village of Hürtgen changed hands 14 times during the campaign, Vossenack eight times. In at least one U.S. infantry battalion morale crumbled under the strain, three company commanders losing their nerve and their commands over a four-day period. All the officers of one rifle company were relieved or broke down, one platoon leader facing arrest for having flatly refused to lead his men into battle. Soldiers of all ranks collapsed.

Hürtgen reflected the best and worst in the American foot soldier. Several men earned the Medal of Honor, while many other acts of gallantry never came to light. But there were also instances in which fear paralyzed men who had seen more action than they could stomach. Some GIs ran, even in the absence of enemy troops. Others refused to move without armored support, while some tank crews refused to advance without infantry protection.

The human toll was staggering. Of the 120,000 U.S. troops that participated in the Hürtgen campaign, an estimated 24,000 were killed, wounded or captured. Combat fatigue, pneumonia and trench foot claimed another 9,000, bringing the casualty rate to nearly 30%.

The Hürtgen nightmare dragged on into mid-December 1944, when the Americans received orders to withdraw.

Because it was so disastrous, and since most people opt only to remember their nation’s victories, the grueling campaign has been largely forgotten. Overshadowed by both the September 1944 abortive Allied invasion of Holland (Operation Market Garden) and the December 1944–January 1945 Battle of the Bulge, the Battle of Hürtgen Forest was accorded only brief mention in memoirs and overlooked by most historians.

When the firing finally stopped, all the Americans had to show for their sacrifices were a few miles of shell holes, tree stumps and shattered buildings. Once the appalling losses came to light, participants and high-ranking officers alike questioned the necessity of the campaign.

“It seemed to me,” reflected Lt. Col. Frank L. Gunn, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 39th Infantry Regiment, “the Hürtgen Forest could have been contained rather than assaulted, and a large flanking or encircling movement performed by corps. This would have reduced the casualties and still have accomplished the mission of capturing the dams on the Rur River.” Lieutenant William Burke of the 803rd Tank Destroyer Battalion echoed that sentiment: “Some of us with combat experience from the beaches to Hürtgen were hard-pressed to understand the tactical wisdom of slogging it out in such an unforgiving environment instead of bypassing it.”

The operational plan even baffled the enemy. “The German command could not understand the reason for the strong American attacks in the Hürtgen Forest,” recalled Maj. Gen. Rudolph von Gersdorff, chief of staff of the German Seventh Army, who twice plotted to assassinate Adolf Hitler yet, improbably, served out the war in uniform. “The fighting in the wooded area denied the American troops the advantages offered them by their air and armored forces, the superiority of which had been decisive in all the battles waged before.”

Yet despite all the criticism and Monday morning quarterbacking, during the costly three-month strategic blunder the U.S. infantry somehow managed to maintain unit integrity and persevere. While the high command inevitably came under criticism, there was no questioning the heroism of the GIs in the foxholes. The historian of Britain’s crack Guards Armored Division, which swapped officers and men with U.S. units, offered this praise of the Americans: “Their methods might be somewhat different from ours and even seem curious and unorthodox, but there could be no doubt about the excellent results when they were put into practice. Divisions…[that] fought in this battle could have challenged comparison with the finest of our own.”

The struggle for the Hürtgen Forest seriously weakened Hodges’ First Army, leaving its extended front line unable to resist the German onslaught in the early hours of the Battle of the Bulge. Cota’s 28th Division was still recovering in northern Luxembourg when hit by Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt’s advance columns that Dec. 16. The 1st and 9th infantry divisions had to depend almost entirely on replacement troops after Hürtgen, and the 4th and 8th also had major manpower gaps to fill. The 2nd Ranger Battalion and 517th PIR emerged from the bloody forest battle in a nearly skeletal state.

In early February 1945, British and Canadian troops replayed aspects of the Hürtgen campaign in Operation Veritable, as Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery’s 21st Army Group closed on the Rhine. The offensive in the Reichswald — the northern anchor of the Siegfried Line — involved fierce fighting in heavy rains and took more than a month. Like the clash for the Hürtgen, Monty’s campaign echoed the Western Front bloodbath of World War I and was thus overlooked by most historians.

The men who fought and died in the woods deserve at least a reflective look.

Originally published by HistoryNet, our sister publication.

The number of major accidents involving military aircraft spiked in 2024, internal Pentagon figures show, and a series of high-profile aviation mishaps with deaths and the loss of aircraft in 2025 suggest the disturbing trend may be continuing.

Across the military, the rate of severe accidents per 100,000 flight hours rose 55% in the 2024 budget year compared with four years earlier. The Marine Corps saw the highest increase, nearly tripling its rate over the same period.

The data, which was released by the Defense Department to Congress and provided exclusively to The Associated Press, tracks Class A mishaps — the most serious accidents, which result in death or a permanent full disability.

An aviation expert noted that broader worsening trends are unlikely the result of a single factor but rather a reflection of multiple smaller issues that accumulate to create an unsafe culture.

These issues include increased operational demands, riskier aircraft like the V-22 Osprey and interruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a significant curtailing of flying time across the military.

But the rising number of serious accidents has some in Congress looking for answers.

The data was released to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, in January after her office asked for the figures after a spate of deadly mishaps involving the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Warren’s office provided the data to the AP, which reviewed it independently.

The statistics cover the full budget years 2020-2023 and then the first 10 months of the 2024 budget year, through July 31.

In those 10 months of last year, 25 service members and Defense Department civilian employees were killed and 14 aircraft were destroyed.

“These accident rates are incredibly troubling and demand action,” Warren told the AP in an emailed statement.

She said legislative changes to make accident reports more accessible ”are desperately needed so Congress can understand the root causes of these accidents to save service member lives.”

Several military aircraft have been especially prone to crashing

The Osprey, which flies like a plane but converts to land like a helicopter, has been among the most dangerous aircraft, as the AP has reported extensively.

In addition, the new Defense Department data shows the Apache helicopter had about 4.5 times the rate of the most serious Class A accidents during the 2024 budget year compared with four years earlier.

The C-130 transport plane, a workhorse of the military, nearly doubled its rate over the same period, even as it reported safer years in between.

The Pentagon, when asked about these trends, did not immediately respond.

The Navy’s data on just its own aviation mishaps shows a marked increase this year. The Naval Safety Command reported eight Class A aviation mishaps in 2024. In 2025, that total has spiked to 14.

Aviation expert and former military pilot John Nance said the ever-growing demands being placed on military pilots are most likely playing a major part in the growing number of mishaps.

“Whether we’re talking about the end of Afghanistan, whether we talk about deployments to Djibouti, or the back and forth across Saudi Arabia to get to the Emirates, I think that as the pace (of military operations) ticks up, the mishaps are going to tick up,” Nance said.

This year has seen a series of accidents

While the data does not continue into 2025, there have been multiple high-profile aviation mishaps this year, including a spate on aircraft carriers at sea and the collision between an Army helicopter and a passenger jet over Washington, D.C., in January, which killed 67 people.

Investigations found that the Black Hawk helicopter’s altimeter gauge was broken, there were issues with the military pilot’s night vision goggles, and the Federal Aviation Administration didn’t address warnings about the dangers that helicopters presented in the area around the Washington airport.

Unlike their civilian counterparts, military aviators face far less predictability and routine when they fly, Nance said.

“You’ve got aircraft commanders ... making decisions with the best information they’ve got, but on the spur of the moment and there’s a level of uncertainty and a level of unpredictability that is wildly beyond anything the commercial airlines experience,” he said.

In the spring, the Navy’s USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier lost two F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jets in the span of a few weeks — one to a bad landing and another slipped off the deck of the ship and fell into the sea.

In December 2024, the guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg mistakenly shot down an F/A-18 from the carrier.

No aviators were killed in any of these episodes. The Navy has not released the results of investigations into the causes of these mishaps.

More recently, four U.S. Army soldiers who were part of an elite team that does nighttime missions died when their Black Hawk helicopter crashed near a military base in Washington state while on a training mission in September.

Then, in October, a fighter jet and a helicopter based off the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz both crashed into the South China Sea within 30 minutes of each other, though no one was killed.

Nance didn’t rule out the possibility that this spike in mishaps is the downstream effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, when military pilots had far less flying time.

“The safety buffer is impacted by a million things,” Nance said. Some things make tiny impacts and others are major. According to him, the pandemic “was a major impact on the operational capabilities.”

Warren’s office is now asking for more detailed figures from the Pentagon on aviation mishaps and over a longer period of time, from 2019 to 2025, according to a request sent to the Pentagon and reviewed by AP.

The request includes questions about Class A mishaps but asks for data on the less serious Class B and C mishaps as well.

Warren’s office is also asking more questions about how the military trains its aircrews and maintenance staff.

How could America lose the Vietnam War?

Even now, 50 years after the last American helicopters left Saigon, the answer is elusive. Despite pouring immense resources into Vietnam — including nearly 3 million military personnel, and suffering 58,000 dead — the world’s most powerful nation was unable to defeat an enemy that seemed hopelessly inferior in military power.

Accusations still fly at a long list of alleged culprits: “pinkos,” war hawks, hippies, the China Lobby, Jane Fonda, John Wayne, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. But can a tabletop wargame — that began life as a college student’s project — offer insight?

“Vietnam 1965-1975” was conceived in the early 1980s when Nick Karp, a Princeton University student, needed to complete his senior thesis. So Karp designed a board game that was published as a hobby game in 1984, and is still available today from GMT Games.

A game of firepower

As befitting such a massive struggle, “Vietnam 1965-1975” is a massive game. The GMT edition includes a 44-page manual, a 5-foot-by-3-foot map and 1,328 small cardboard pieces that depict combat battalions and regiments, as well as various informational markers.

The order of battle alone illustrates the polyglot nature of the conflict. On the Allied side are more than a dozen U.S. Army and Marine divisions and brigades that fought in Vietnam, or could have been sent, plus numerous independent artillery and mechanized battalions. Alongside them is the Army of the Republic of Vietnam, plus contingents of Australian, South Korean, Thai and Philippines troops. Opposing this coalition is the National Liberation Front and North Vietnamese Army divisions — mostly infantry, backed by some artillery and mechanized units — and a plethora of Viet Cong battalions.

The game is played over an L-shaped map stretching from the hills of the Demilitarized Zone in the north to the rice paddies of the Mekong Delta in the south.

Each turn — equivalent to one season of real time — the Allied and NLF players conduct various “operations” including search and destroy, clear and secure, hold and patrol, bombardment and strategic movement. To win the 1965-1975 campaign scenario, the Communists either have to capture Saigon, or control the bulk of the South Vietnamese population. The Allies need only surpass their real-life counterparts: If South Vietnam survives until early 1975, they win.

At first glance, the game looks like a slam dunk for the U.S. The Allies have copious amounts of tactical airpower, artillery and naval gunfire. Helicopters can whisk U.S. and ARVN troops over rough terrain, while tank and armored cavalry units prowl the roads. Strategic bombing can disrupt the North Vietnamese war effort and interdict troops and supplies moving down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Combat is resolved by rolling dice. The game’s combat system favors whoever can employ the most firepower in a battle, and that is rarely the Communists. It’s not that the Allies won’t take casualties. But the NVA and VC will suffer many more.

Death by a thousand cuts

So why doesn’t America crush the Communists by 1968, and LBJ win reelection instead of leaving the White House? Because like the proverbial death by a thousand cuts, a lot of little things undermine what seems like overwhelming power.

For starters, the terrain is mostly unfavorable for Western-style mechanized armies. Jungles and hills impede movement and provide defensive bonuses during combat. Allied firepower is immensely lethal but restricted unless the battlefield is declared a free fire zone, which undercuts support for the Saigon government.

Much of the Allied frustration comes from the difficulty of counterinsurgency. The map divides South Vietnam into 35 regions, each with a certain level of population. Dice are rolled each turn for each region to determine what percentage is pro-Saigon or pro-Communist, which in turn determines how much manpower is available to recruit ARVN or Viet Cong troops. The more VC/NVA units in a region, the greater the population that backs the Communists. Yet the presence of Allied troops in a region doesn’t generate support for Saigon, perhaps because ARVN troops had a reputation for robbing the peasants.

To win the support of the populace, the obvious solution is to destroy the Viet Cong in the countryside. But that’s easier said than done. Though weak in combat power, Viet Cong guerrillas have a special ability to evade Allied search-and-destroy operations. Cornering even a weak VC battalion can require three or four U.S. battalions — the ARVN aren’t mobile enough — and there are too few U.S. troops to hunt down all the VC.

Every turn, Communist units are wiped out, only to be replaced by new ones. NVA regiments infiltrate the South via the Ho Chi Minh trail through Cambodia and Laos. Fresh VC units sprout in every region, using local pro-Communist manpower as well as arms sent down from the North.

A war of whac-a-mole

The game captures the dilemma that confounded the Pentagon. To stop the Viet Cong from controlling the countryside means Allied troops have to fan out to surround the guerrillas. But splitting up to hunt VC leaves the Allies vulnerable to being jumped by North Vietnamese regulars that can be lethal against the ARVN or an isolated American unit.

“The game’s operational core shows how U.S. commanders whose forces possessed far greater firepower and mobility than their opponents could rarely bring those seemingly decisive advantages to bear against Communist units that generally fought only when it suited them,” Kevin Boylan, a Vietnam War historian and wargame designer, told Defense News. “The game illustrates how this fundamental asymmetry at the operational level caused the war to drag on so long that a critical mass of the American people lost patience with it at the strategic level.”

“Vietnam 1965-1975” melds both the operational and strategic aspects of the war.

For example, South Vietnam’s unstable political system has battlefield consequences. The game assigns each ARVN corps and division a randomly chosen commander with varying levels of competence and loyalty to the regime. Each turn, dice are rolled for loyalty, and a bad roll means that some ARVN formations will stay immobile in their bases that turn. If enough commanders are disloyal, there will be a coup that can shake up the ARVN command structure.

A credit card war

But if there is one mechanism in the game that best explains why America ultimately failed in Vietnam, it’s the “morale” and “commitment” system. Essentially, the game depicts the U.S. war effort as a sort of credit card where America starts with a huge credit limit.

The U.S. begins the game in the summer of 1965 with a “morale level” of 520 and a “commitment level” of 25 (reflecting American aircraft and advisers already in South Vietnam). Want to send the 1st Cavalry Division or the 3rd Marine Division? That will cost you around 10 “commitment points” apiece. A battalion of 155mm artillery or a Navy cruiser? They’re one point each.

At first, the Allied player is like a college kid with a new Visa card. There are practically limitless resources on the shelf. Aircraft, helicopters, supplies to equip ARVN divisions, South Korean troops, replacements for American casualties. Everything is available, but everything costs commitment points.

Meanwhile, there are a litany of factors that decrease morale, including sending fresh troops to Vietnam, invading Laos or Cambodia, losing provincial capitals, bombing North Vietnam or if the Communists declare a special offensive. Morale also goes down each turn as commitment grows over time, reflecting the inevitable fatigue of a long war. Unless the Allies wipe out a lot of Viet Cong in a turn, morale will only go down, not up.

Eventually, the bill becomes due. The rule in “Vietnam 1965-1975” is simple and unequivocal: U.S. commitment cannot exceed morale. If it does, then America must reduce its forces in Vietnam to balance the books.

And so the long U.S. withdrawal begins. An infantry brigade here, a tank or artillery battalion there. Once the tipping point is reached, each turn the U.S. presence in Southeast Asia shrinks a little more. And a little more. Perhaps the pullout begins in 1969, as Nixon chose to do as part of his “Vietnamization” of the war. Or in 1968, or 1970. But sooner or later, South Vietnam will have to fight on its own in a desperate battle to stave off Communist invasion from within and without.

Can history be changed?

That American society became too weary and fractured to continue fighting in Vietnam is hardly a revelation. But while a book or a documentary can describe history, the fascination of a historical wargame is the chance to experiment with it. Both sides in “Vietnam 1965-1975” can pursue a variety of strategies.

For example, the Allies can choose to accelerate the buildup in Southeast Asia by dispatching troops more quickly than LBJ did, taking an extra hit to morale in order to hit the Communists sooner. Or, Washington can send fewer troops in a bid to preserve public support and delay the U.S. withdrawal. American troops can fight more aggressively in the early war, suffering additional casualties and morale loss in hopes of suppressing the Communists before they take root in the countryside. Or, they can adopt a more passive strategy that minimizes U.S. losses but leave the VC unmolested as they take over the countryside.

The Communists have options, too. Spread VC units across Vietnam to control the population, or concentrate and risk heavier losses to capture provincial capitals? Avoid contact with U.S. troops while going after weaker ARVN units, or conduct hit-and-run raids on U.S. units to inflict casualties and undermine American morale? Either way, the Communists will patiently wait for the Americans to leave before going for final victory.

Can America win the game? It seems unlikely. Once U.S. troops and airpower are gone, the ARVN seems too brittle to defeat the NVA and VC. Indeed, Karp himself admits that his goal in designing the game wasn’t to create a fair contest between two players, but rather to model a crucial period in American history. The game was aimed at “reproducing a mood and understanding of competing priorities, not scrupulously documenting inevitably contingent details,” he told Defense News.

“I wasn’t trying to make a deep statement about favorites to win, nor the futility of the war either,” he added. “The victory conditions are far off, the road to achieve them vague and wandering.” In fact, Karp said he would “no way be offended” if players modified the game “either to improve their play experience or to better conform to their understanding of history.”

Every war is unique, and there is a danger in searching for too many lessons of the Vietnam War. But this tabletop game illuminates a problem that resonates today. U.S. troops fought for years in Afghanistan and Iraq before the American public and its leaders grew weary of the global war on terror. How long — and at what cost — will the American public endure fighting in distant lands, be it in Eastern Europe or Taiwan?

“The United States had the raw military and economic power to prevail if it had waged total war in Indochina,” Boylan said. “But, as the game makes clear, the American people had no stomach for that. And the war was effectively unwinnable at the level of commitment that they were willing to sustain.”

For 12 years — longer than any fighter past or present — Joe Louis would be the undisputed king of boxing. So dominant, in fact, that the “Brown Bomber” transcended the stringent racial barriers of 20th-century America, cheered on by both Black and white citizens.

Louis, the grandson of a slave and the great grandson of a slave owner, rose to prominence in 1930s to become the face of freedom and democracy when he faced off against Germany’s Max Schmeling in 1938. According to the National African American History and Culture Museum, “It was reported that Hitler called Schmeling just before the fight and ordered him to win for the sake of Nazi Germany.”

The match was more than a test of will between two men — it had become a battle of warring ideologies. Louis won.

Louis enlisted in the Army in 1942, rising to the rank of sergeant. Kept stateside, he fought in hundreds of exhibition matches to entertain the troops and raise money for the military.

But, according to authors Johnny Smith and Randy Roberts, Louis’ service and his contributions to the civil rights movement have largely been glossed over. Their latest book, “The Fight of His Life: Joe Louis’s Battle for Freedom During World War II,” hopes to remedy that dearth of material.

Johnny Smith recently sat down with Military Times to discuss Louis’s evolution from boxer to a champion for Black Americans. The below interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Military Times: Sports have long been a successful platform for protest. How did Joe Louis contribute to that legacy?

Johnny Smith: That gets to the heart of the reason we wrote the book. Joe Louis, in most biographies, the sections that deal with his service during World War II … I don’t want to call it superficial, but it’s not treated with the real depth and importance that Joe Louis played during the war.

In 1938, it’s the biggest fight in the history of the world, when Joe Louis steps into the ring at Yankee Stadium and he knocks out Max Schmeling, who was viewed as a proxy of the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler. Like Jesse Owens winning four gold medals in Berlin in 1936, Joe Louis becomes a symbol of not just Black America, but of democracy — opposing totalitarianism, opposing Nazism. That was a powerful moment that made Joe Louis the most famous American athlete in the world, Black or white.

Louis is the heavyweight champion from 1937 to 1949, and the heavyweight championship gives him a platform. In 1938, he’s a symbol.

In most books that focus on Louis it’s almost as if he’s stuck in 1938, but we see two things change for Louis in our research: Number one, in 1940 he’s recruited by the Republican Party to endorse Wendell Willkie. Joe Louis gives a series of speeches in Northern cities where he explains why he’s for Willkie and why he’s opposed to Franklin Roosevelt, the Democrat.

He criticizes the Democratic Party for failing to pass a federal antilynching law. He criticizes the Democrats for failing to protect the civil rights and voting rights of Black Americans. On the other side of that is Jesse Owens, stumping for Franklin Roosevelt. This was a pivotal moment where, for the first time, the two big political parties are seeking the endorsements of Black athletes.

This was crucial for Louis because before this he’s a bit shy with the press. He had to overcome a childhood stutter, he could be a bit uncomfortable around white reporters, but he develops a confidence in his public speaking, and he also develops a political consciousness. So in 1940 that’s really a turning point.

The second thing is the war itself. When the War Department drafts Louis as an ambassador for promoting goodwill during the war, what’s happening is he travels to dozens of camps. It changes the relationship that Louis has with his fans, because these are Black men who are serving to fight for democracy abroad but also at home.

At different moments he challenges segregation and discrimination against Black soldiers, and he realizes ,‘I have to be more than a boxer. It’s not enough to be the heavyweight champion. Being a Black heavyweight champion has not expanded democracy for my people.’ He has to take action.

MT: Can you talk about the evolution of Louis’ rivalry with German boxer Max Schmeling?

Smith: I think the big thing to understand about Louis is he truly was a man of the people. He would talk to anyone; he would help anyone he could. There’s all these stories about him giving the last dollar bill in his pocket to some guy in Harlem. It was part of the image of him. My point here is that Louis didn’t necessarily see Schmeling as the perpetrator of evil or anti-Semitism. But I’m not sure when the friendship really begins. It’s certainly not during the war, because Louis talks a little trash — saying how he’d like to be out there on the battlefield and take out Schmeling.

But there’s a clip of the show “This is Your Life” starring Louis. Schmeling shows up. [Louis cracks a smile and enthusiastically hugs Schmeling.] They both risked their lives in the ring. They both served in a horrific war. They were representatives of their government and so they did have much in common.

MT: What was Louis’ evolution regarding his views on fighting for civil rights?

Smith: I think one part of the story that’s worth highlighting is the fact that although Joe Louis was born in Alabama, he’s a product of the urban North. He comes to boxing in Detroit, Chicago. For much of his career Louis is fighting in New York City. The furthest south he ever had a match was Washington, D.C. Most of his fights were above the Mason-Dixon line.

As a heavyweight champion of the world, he enjoyed a certain kind of freedom and mobility that few Black men did. But when he goes into the Army — we have to understand that the Army policy was essentially replicating the Jim Crow South system — that includes Louis. So now he’s confined in ways that he had not been before the war. During a troop campaign, Louis along with Sugar Ray Robinson go to all these military bases, many of them in the South. He’s being confronted with conditions that he had not had to face in his boxing career.

It’s in these military camps that Black soldiers are complaining that they’re being treated like prisoners in a labor camp. That they are being harassed, tormented, facing abuse. There are violent clashes in these camps. He witnesses this; he hears stories about it. And I think that the big turning point that we, wrote about at length, comes in 1944.

MT: Louis and Robinson famously developed a friendship during their time in the Army. How did that come about?

Smith: It’s a mutual admiration. Jackie Robinson was a big football star at UCLA, so they knew of each other, certainly, they could relate to each other. They’re both Black men living in a segregated sports world.

But when Jackie Robinson is serving at Fort Hood in Texas, and a white bus driver tells Robinson you better get to the back of the bus, Robinson remembers that Louis took a stand against segregation, he recalls the courage of Joe Louis and says, ‘No, I’m not going to do it.’

There is a link that has been overlooked between Joe Louis and Jackie Robinson. We remember Jackie Robinson for being outspoken in terms of civil rights. We don’t remember Joe Louis in the same way, but it was Joe Louis who gave Jackie Robinson the confidence to take his own stand.

MT: Is there anything that particularly surprised you in your research?

Smith: What I love about this book is there’s a lot of archival material in it and we knew that the only way we were going be able to write something new was to go to the archives. The newspaper coverage was going to be critical and following Louis day by day, week by week, in his travels, but the archives allowed us to tell the political story.

The other thing, too, that I think about in terms of archival sources has to do with Sugar Ray Robinson. We obtained his military file and it was full of reports from doctors assessing whether or not he had some kind of brain trauma from boxing or he suffered from amnesia, and that’s why he couldn’t recollect what had happened to him right before they’re supposed to go overseas. No one has ever written about this in detail. The only sources that existed previously were Sugar Ray Robinson’s memoirs, which contradict some of these documents.

Those documents in his military file allowed us to better understand his family history, his history with these headaches and the difficulty the doctors had coming to a conclusion about what was causing the headaches. It makes for a fascinating case.

His impressive girth, bombast and outlandish costumes made Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring the darling of Allied satirists. As their cities were pummeled to rubble during the war, even the Germans took to contemptuously referring to the head of the Luftwaffe as “Der Dicke“ (“the fat one”). More than 60 years on, that perception of the Reichsmarschall persists; but it is only half the story.

His comical words, actions and unique fashion sense aside, it should be remembered that Göring was a bona fide war hero who received the coveted Pour le Mérite during World War I and was a figure of high importance in the Nazi hierarchy. His place at the center of great events makes Göring worthy of careful study and close scrutiny even today.

On May 8, 1945, Göring surrendered to the Americans in full military regalia. Expecting to be treated as the emissary of a defeated people, the Reichsmarschall was shocked when his medals and marshal’s baton were taken away and he was confined in Prisoner of War Camp No. 32, known to its inmates as the “Ashcan.”

It was from his cell in the Ashcan that on July 25, 1945, Adolf Hitler’s former heir was interviewed by Maj. Kenneth W. Hechler of the U.S. Army Europe’s Historical Division, with Capt. Herbert R. Sensenig serving as translator. The interview — which was overlooked for more than 60 years — provides insight into some of the strategic options considered by the Nazi leadership early in the war, their views of the threat posed by the United States and the Soviet Union, and how those attitudes influenced the actual strategy implemented.

Hechler: What was the German estimate of American war potential? Did Germany hope to complete its European campaigns before the United States would be strong enough to intervene?

Göring: As a break neared and it seemed that the matter had to be decided by war, I told Hitler, I consider it a duty to prevent America going to war with us. I believed the economic and technical potential of the United States to be unusually great, particularly the air force. Although at the time not too many new inventions had been developed to the extent we might have anticipated, and airplane production was significant but not outstandingly large. I always answered Hitler that it would be comparatively easy to convert factories to war production. In particular, the mighty automobile industry could be resorted to. Hitler was of the opinion that America would not intervene because of its unpleasant experiences in World War I.

What unpleasant experiences? Loss of life?

The United States helped everybody and got nothing for it the last time, Hitler felt. Things had not been carried out the way the United States had planned. [President Woodrow] Wilson’s 14 Points had not been observed. Hitler was also thinking of the difficulties of shipping an army to Europe and keeping it supplied.

What did you feel personally about our war potential?

While I, personally, was of the opinion that the United States could build an air force quicker than an army, I constantly warned of the possibilities of the U.S. with its great technical advances and economic resources.

If you thought the United States would become so powerful, how did this relate to your own plans for waging war?

The decisive factor in 1938 was the consideration that it would take the United States several years to prepare. Its shipping tonnage at the time was not too large. I wanted Hitler to conclude the war in Europe as rapidly as possible and not get involved in Russia. Yet, on the question of whether America could build up an army on a big scale, opinions were divided.

What were the divided opinions? What did other people think?

I don’t know the views of other influential people. I cannot say that other people had given different advice.

What opinion was held by OKW [German Armed Forces High Command] and OKH [German Army High Command]?

I don’t know the opinion of OKW or OKH. I used to tell Hitler that everything depended on our not bringing the U.S. over to Europe again. I said during the Polish campaign that we must not let the United States get involved. In 1941 the issue became real, and the general opinion was that it was better to bear unpleasant incidents with the U.S. and strive to keep it out of the struggle than allow a deterioration of relations between the United States and Germany. This was our unrelenting effort.

What specifically indicated to you that [President Franklin D.] Roosevelt was preparing for war?

A mass of details. It was all published in a White Book [intelligence assessment]. I don’t know if the entire text was published or only extracts. It made a deep impression.

Did Germany expect to bring its campaign in Europe to a successful conclusion before we could build up our war potential sufficiently to intervene there?

Hitler believed that he could bring matters to such a point that it would be very difficult for you to invade or intervene.

In December 1941, what was Germany’s estimate of our shipbuilding capability, which could influence the European campaign?

It was our opinion that it was on a very large scale. Roosevelt spoke of bridges of ships across the Atlantic and a constant stream of planes. We fully believed him and were convinced that it was true. We also had this opinion from reports by observers in the United States. We understood your potential. On the other hand, the tempo of your shipbuilding, for example, Henry Kaiser’s program, surprised and upset us. We had rather minimized the apparently exaggerated claims in this field. One spoke of these floating coffins, Kaisersärge, that would be finished by a single torpedo. We believed most of your published production figures, but not all of them, as some seem inflated. However, since the United States had all the necessary raw materials except rubber, and many technical experts, our engineers could estimate United States production quite accurately.

At first, however, we could not believe the speed with which your Merchant Marine was growing. Claims of eight to 10 days to launch a ship seemed fantastic. Even when we realized it referred to the assembly of prefabricated parts, a mere 10 days to put it together was still unthinkable. Our shipbuilding industry was very thorough and painstaking, but very slow, disturbingly slow, in comparison. It took nine months to build a Danube vessel.

Why did Germany declare war on the United States?

I was astonished when Germany declared war on the United States. We should rather have accepted a certain amount of unpleasant incidents. It was clear to us that if Roosevelt were reelected, the U.S. would inevitably make war against us. This conviction was strongly held, especially with Hitler. After Pearl Harbor, although we were not bound under our treaty with Japan to come to its aid since Japan had been the aggressor, Hitler said we were in effect at war already, with ships having been sunk or fired upon, and must soothe the Japanese. For this reason, a step was taken which we always regretted. It was unnecessary for us to accept responsibility for striking the first blow. For the same reason, we had been the butt of propaganda in 1914, when we started to fight, although we knew that within 48 hours Russia would have attacked us. I believe Hitler was convinced that as a result of the Japanese attack, the main brunt of the United States force would be brought to bear on the Far East and would not constitute such a danger for Germany. Although he never expressed it in words, it was perhaps inexpressibly bitter to him that the main force of the United States was in fact turned against Europe.

What comments were made by Hitler during 1939-41 on the strength of the antiwar campaign in the U.S.?

Hitler spoke a great deal on the subject. These people [isolationists], he thought, had great influence, but he got this [impression] from the U.S. press and some observers in the U.S., for example, labeling Roosevelt a warmonger. After the election of 1940, we realized that these isolationist forces were inadequate to hinder the United States’ entry into the war.

But [Wendell] Willkie was not an isolationist!

When we read Willkie’s speeches just before the election, it was also clear that even had Willkie been elected the course of events would have been the same. After the election, we attributed little importance to the isolationists in the United States. Hitler said that they were not strong enough. Roosevelt declared before the election that U.S. troops would not leave the country and were only to be used to repel a possible invasion. We realized that this was a sop to antiwar sentiment rather than any decisive change of attitude. When Sumner Welles visited Europe in 1940, we believed the United States still wanted to stay out of the war, and that on Welles’ return there might be an attempt to preserve peace. We had previously found in Poland the diary of Count Potofsky, which indicated that Roosevelt was preparing for war. Welles’ visit might have been, we thought, a possible sign that the U.S. was inclined to try to settle matters peaceably.

Editor’s note: American industrialist Wendell Willkie was an influential figure in American politics during the war. He ran for president in 1940, opposing Roosevelt’s New Deal but supporting his foreign policy, and won 22 million popular votes to Roosevelt’s 27 million.

Sumner Welles was an American diplomat. In the spring of 1940, during the Phony War period prior to Germany’s invasion of France, Roosevelt sent him to visit European leaders about preserving the peace. Jacob Potofsky was the Polish ambassador to the United States and had a number of interviews with Roosevelt, Cordell Hull and other senior American statesmen. He apparently knew of Roosevelt’s letters to Winston Churchill before the latter became prime minister.

Despite correct estimates of our potential, what made you think that you could emerge victorious in a war against us?

We had assessed the capacity of your air force especially well. The best engines were produced in the United States. We used to work on your engines and bought up every kind we could. Since the end of the last war, Germany had fallen behind in the air, while U.S. commercial aviation was far ahead of us. But in the beginning, we had not fully assessed the possibility of daylight bombers. Our fighters could not cope with them. When we were able to do so, there was a pause and then you sent them out with fighter escort. The Flying Fortress, for example, had more than we had anticipated. Our estimate was incorrect.

That being so, I still don’t understand why you wanted war with us.

The war was, in fact, already going on. It was only a question of form. Our declaration of war was made solely from the propaganda point of view. We would have been willing to make the most far-reaching concessions to avoid war with the United States, as such a conflict would and did prove the heaviest imaginable burden for us. But we were convinced that there was no chance to avoid war. Even if you had transported mountains of material to England, we should not have declared war, since England alone could not have carried out an invasion of Europe without your active participation.

With regard to our propaganda about a second front in 1943, did the German high command really expect that we would invade Europe in 1942-43?

In general, no one believed it. On the contrary, we hoped that the Russians would become disgusted with you first and come to a compromise peace with us. The Russians had complained bitterly that no second front had been opened. We knew precisely what forces were in England. We knew of every American unit in England and could estimate exactly what you had there and that it was insufficient for an invasion.

What was your appraisal of the significance of [the August 1942 British landing at] Dieppe?

We never found out if Dieppe was just a test landing, an attempt to secure a beachhead by surprise or a gesture to the Russians that something, at least, was being done.

Were there any changes in the defense ordered by you or anyone else as a result of Dieppe?

Only minor changes. We did order that the MLR [main line of resistance] should be right along the water. This was learned from the experience of Dieppe.

Were you informed by any information or intelligence of our impending invasion of North Africa in November 1942?

No. We had discussed the possibility of your attacking the west coast of Africa, but we did not think you would enter the Mediterranean. When the big convoy was reported near Gibraltar, we knew some operation was imminent, but the objective might have been any part of Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica or Malta.

Why were so few planes used against us in North Africa?

We did send a couple of squadrons as reinforcements in November 1942 and bombed successfully, near the Tunis side—for example, Bône and Algiers—and we bombed and sank ships at sea. The planes were based in Italy and had insufficient range to strike at landings around Oran, for instance. We did not have too many long-range bombers. As your forces moved east, they came within range. The Heinkel 177 had more than enough range and was supposed to be ready in 1941, but it took too long to perfect and was not ready until early in 1944. It seemed terrible to me that there was such a delay, since such models became obsolete so quickly.

Why did you not first seize Dakar?

In 1940 we had a plan to seize all North Africa from Dakar to Alexandria, and with it the Atlantic islands for U-boat bases. This would have cut off many of Britain’s shipping lanes. At the same time, any resistance movement in North Africa could be crushed. Then, taking Gibraltar and Suez would merely be a question of time, and nobody could have interfered in the Mediterranean. But Hitler would not make concessions to Spain in Morocco, on account of France. Spain had no objections to the campaign; in fact, the Spaniards were ready for it.

Who made this plan? Where and when was the conference on it?

Hitler and [Joachim von] Ribbentrop met [Francisco] Franco and [Ramón Serrano] Suñer [Franco’s chief negotiator] at Hendaye [France] in September or October 1940. Unfortunately, I was not along. [Benito] Mussolini was jealous and feared having the Germans in the Mediterranean. By that time, it was 1941 and the Russian danger in Hitler’s mind excluded all other considerations. Lack of shipping had prevented us from invading England, but, before the difficulties with Russia, we could have carried out the Gibraltar Plan, with 20 divisions in West Africa, 10 in North Africa and 20 against the Suez Canal, still leaving 100 divisions in France. The entire Italian army, which was unfit for a major war, could have been used for occupation forces. The loss of Gibraltar might have induced England to sue for peace. Failure to carry out the plan was one of the major mistakes of the war.

The plan was originally mine. Hitler had similar ideas and everyone was enthusiastic about it. The navy was in favor of the plans, as it would have given the navy better bases. Instead of being cooped up in Biscay and Bordeaux, it could have had U-boat bases much farther out in Spain and the Atlantic islands. If the campaign succeeded, I personally wanted to attack the Azores to secure U-boat bases there, which would have crippled British sea lanes. The main task in taking Gibraltar would have fallen to the Luftwaffe. Paratroopers would have had to be dropped. So I was chiefly concerned, and I would have very eagerly carried out the operation. The Luftwaffe had many officers who had participated in the war in Spain a year and a half before and knew the people and the country.

Even if Gibraltar had not been taken, we could have Algeciras [as a base of operations], and with 800mm siege mortars could have smashed the soft stone of Gibraltar and taken the base. There was only one unprotected airfield on the Rock. In 24 hours the Royal Air Force would have been forced off the Rock, and we could have battered it to pieces. This was a real task and we were eager to accomplish it. Ships would have been sunk by mines and no mine sweepers could have operated.

Can you trace the defeat of the Gibraltar plan directly to Hitler’s fear and distrust of Russia?

By the beginning of 1941, the Russian threat had begun to loom as a very real danger. Russia was bringing up large forces and making preparations on the frontier. If an agreement had been reached with [Commissar of Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav] Molotov in February 1941, and the Russian danger had not been so real, we should certainly have carried out my plan in the spring of 1941.

Editor’s note: It is clear from Hitler’s first book, “Mein Kampf,” that as early as the 1930s the leader of the Third Reich sought to invade Russia in order to give Germany access to its living space, oil and other natural resources, grain and population. Göring was catering to his American interrogators and the United States at a point in time when U.S.–Soviet tensions were growing and Stalin and the Red Army posed the greatest ideological and military threat to Europe since the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich.

Was the seizure of Dakar definitely part of your plan?

Yes. The plan called for securing all of North Africa, so that there would be no possible chance of any enemy penetrating to the Mediterranean. Such a possibility had to be excluded under all circumstances. Dakar was about the southwestern extremity. We would not have gone as far south as Freetown, for example. It would have taken much too long for anyone to attack across the desert with neither roads nor water supply adequate for the purpose. There was, therefore, no real danger to the Mediterranean from that far south. We would have taken Cyprus, too. I would have taken it right after we took Crete. We could also have taken Malta easily. Then the Atlantic islands would have been further protection for the coast of Africa. But fear of Russia stopped us. We had only eight divisions on the whole Russian frontier at the time.

Editor’s note: It is unlikely that the Germans could have taken Malta or Cyprus after their airborne invasion of Crete, although they had plans to invade Malta.

The Wehrmacht suffered more than 6,000 casualties taking Crete, the vast bulk of them paratroopers, and the operation left both the Luftwaffe’s Fallschirmjäger and its transport arm—which lost more than 300 Junkers Ju-52 transports heavily damaged or destroyed—debilitated and unable to execute any large-scale airborne operations for some time to come. Nor could the Luftwaffe support the Russian campaign after Crete to the extent that Hitler had anticipated. Indeed, after the debacle at Crete, Hitler turned his back on large-scale airborne operations forever.

Were Hitler’s fears of Russia military or ideological? Did he fear communism’s spread or Russia’s military might?

Hitler feared a military attack. Molotov made the following demands in February 1941: a second war on Finland, to result in Russian occupation of the entire country; invasion of Romania and occupation of part of the country; strengthened Russian position in Bulgaria; solution of the Dardanelles question (none of us wished to see Russia there); and the question of the Skagerrak and the Kattegat. This made us fall out of our chairs, it was so incredible. This was the last straw; Molotov was not to be heard any further. Germany would not even discuss it.

We would have no objections to Russia having a sphere of influence in Finland, but Hitler felt that if Russia occupied the whole of Finland, she would reach out to Swedish iron ore mines and the port of Narvik, and we did not want the Russians as our northern neighbors, with troops in Scandinavia. The German people were also very sympathetic toward the valiant Finns. The Russian move northwest would have tended to outflank Germany. Similarly, the Russians in Romania might not necessarily go south, but might move westward to encircle Germany on that side. By denying us the nickel of Finland and the grain and oil of Romania, Russia could have exerted economic pressure against us, and in 1942 or so proceeded to direct military action. These were the main reasons that kept us from arriving at any agreement.

In November 1940, when the first alarming reports came from the east, Hitler gave his first orders to OKW regarding the steps which would have to be taken if the situation with Russia became dangerous. Provision had to be made for the eventuality of a Russian attack. In March 1941, Hitler made up his mind to launch a preventive attack on Russia as a practical matter. I had favored making more concessions to Molotov, since I believed that if Russia invaded Finland and Romania, the differences between her and Britain and the United States would have become insuperable. Hitler, however, was personally distrustful of Russia all the time and saw in her, with the mighty armaments she had been piling up for 10 years, the great future enemy of Germany. Hitler’s inward mistrust remained deep even though not expressed. He wanted to reject all of Molotov’s demands in February 1941, whereas those of my opinion felt that a second Finnish war and a Russian drive on the Dardanelles would rupture the already tense relations between Russia and the Anglo-Saxon powers. In the long run, Russia might then fight England and not against us.

What Stalin’s real intentions were, I don’t know — whether he wanted to move toward the Dardanelles, or to attack Germany. If we had granted Russia’s demands, we might have had her join with us in a four-power pact, replacing the Three-Power Pact. I did not want to attack Russia. I wanted to carry out the Gibraltar plan, and I also did not want to see my Luftwaffe split between the Eastern and Western fronts. Russia was developing a position completely and finally contradictory to the interests of the British.

What happened to Hermann Göring after this interview?

On Aug. 12, 1945, Göring arrived, with other accused Nazi leaders, in the shattered ruins of Nuremberg, where they were detained next to the Palace of Justice. Slimmed down and weaned off his dependence on painkillers by the beginning of the Nuremberg trials on Nov. 20, he was charged with crimes under four general headings: the common plan or conspiracy (to initiate the war), crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The prisoner psychiatrist at Nuremberg found Göring to be a brilliant, brave, ruthless, grasping and shrewd executive. At the same time, he was charming, persuasive, intelligent and imaginative. But his urbane personality was also characterized by a complete lack of moral discrimination and an absence of any sense of the value of human life.

Göring defended himself, Hitler and the Third Reich energetically and at times even brilliantly. However, his voluntary admissions and frank avowals were hardly the basis for a sound defense. He cut an impressive figure in the witness box and his booming voice and defiant testimony, broadcast throughout occupied Germany by the Allies, lifted spirits in many parts of Germany as the people heard their Hermann fighting back.

The first screening in court of the graphic concentration camp films and testimony from senior commanders of the SS, however, undermined Göring’s defense, taking the wind out of his sails and leaving him bitterly depressed. On Aug. 31, 1946, after 216 court days, the accused were called upon to make their final addresses. The German people trusted their leader, remarked Göring. Ignorant of crimes of which we know today, the people fought with loyalty, self-sacrifice and courage, and they have suffered, too, in this life-and-death struggle into which they were arbitrarily thrust. The German people are free from blame. His address failed to save him, although it did reinforce a growing myth among the German people that stressed their victimization during the war rather than their complicity in the crimes of the Third Reich.

On Tuesday, Oct. 1, 1946, Hermann Göring was pronounced guilty on all four charges and sentenced to death by hanging. Hitler’s former Reichsmarschall cheated the hangman’s noose when he swallowed potassium cyanide, which may have been provided by one of his American guards, on Oct. 15, only hours before his scheduled execution. He was cremated at Dachau and his ashes were dumped in a trash can.

Originally published on HistoryNet, our sister publication.

President Donald Trump on Monday did not rule out military action against Venezuela despite bringing up a potential diplomatic opening with leader Nicolás Maduro, who has insisted that a U.S. military buildup and strikes on alleged drug boats near his South American country are designed to push him out of office.

Trump reiterated that he “probably would talk to” Maduro, but underscored that he is not taking off the table the possibility of military action on Venezuelan territory.

“I don’t rule out that. I don’t rule out anything,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office a day after he first floated the possibility of having “discussions” with Maduro. Trump, however, sidestepped questions about whether Maduro could say anything to him that would lead to the U.S. backing off its military show of force.

“He’s done tremendous damage to our country,” said Trump, tying Maduro to drugs and migrants coming into the U.S. from Venezuela. “He has not been good to the United States, so we’ll see what happens.”

The comments deepened the uncertainty about the Trump administration’s next steps toward Maduro’s government. The U.S. has ratcheted up the pressure in recent days, saying it was expecting to designate as a terrorist organization a cartel it says is led by Maduro and other high-level Venezuelan government officials.

The USS Gerald R. Ford and accompanying warships arrived in the Caribbean this weekend just as the U.S. military announced its latest in a series of strikes against vessels suspected of transporting drugs.

‘Can turn policy on a dime’

The administration says its actions are a counterdrug operation meant to stop narcotics from flowing to American cities, but some analysts, Venezuelans and the country’s political opposition see them as an escalating pressure tactic against Maduro.

The Trump administration has shown it “can turn policy on a dime,” said Geoff Ramsey, an expert on U.S. policy toward Venezuela who is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He pointed to the diplomatic talks the administration held with Iran “right up until the point” that the U.S. military targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities in June.

But, Ramsey added, the timing of Trump’s remarks — after Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement of the impending terrorist designation of the Cartel de los Soles — underscores that the administration does not want to repeat failed attempts at dialogue.

“They really want to negotiate from a place of strength, and I think the White House is laying out an ultimatum for Maduro,” Ramsey said. “Either he engages in credible talks about a transition, or the U.S. will have no choice but to escalate.”

Maduro has negotiated with the U.S. and Venezuela’s political opposition for several years, most notably in the two years before the July 2024 presidential election. Those negotiations resulted in agreements meant to pave the way for a free and democratic election, but Maduro repeatedly tested their limits, ultimately claiming victory despite credible evidence that he lost the contest by a 2-to-1 margin.

Among the concessions the U.S. made to Maduro during negotiations was approval for oil giant Chevron Corp. to resume pumping and exporting Venezuelan oil. The corporation’s activities in the South American country resulted in a financial lifeline for Maduro’s government.

Neither Maduro nor his chief negotiator, National Assembly president Jorge Rodriguez, commented Monday on Trump’s remarks. A spokesperson for Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado told reporters Monday that she would not comment on Trump’s remarks.

Trump also talks about Mexico

Trump didn’t even rule out possible military action against close allies in the region.

“Would I want strikes in Mexico to stop drugs? OK with me, whatever we have to do to stop drugs,” Trump said, adding that he’s “not happy with Mexico.”

Trump said the U.S. government has drug corridors from Mexico “under major surveillance” and said he would also like to target Colombia’s “cocaine factories.”

“Would I knock out those factories? I would be proud to do it personally. I didn’t say I’m doing it — but I would be proud to do it,” he said.

Skepticism and hope in Venezuela about possible talks

Trump’s goal on Venezuela remains unclear, but above all, Ramsey said, the president “is looking for a win.”

“And he may be flexible on exactly what that looks like,” Ramsey said. “I could envision the U.S. pushing for greater control over Venezuela’s natural resources, including oil, as well as greater cooperation with the president’s migration and security goals.”

In Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, people responded with skepticism and hope to the possibility of a new dialogue between the U.S. and Maduro, whose government has fueled rumors of a ground invasion despite the Trump administration giving little clear indication of such a plan.

“If (the dialogue) actually happens, I hope the government will actually follow through this time,” shopkeeper Gustavo García, 38, said as he left church. ”We have to be serious. They’ve gotten us used to them talking, but they don’t honor the agreements. You don’t mess with Trump.”

Stay-at-home mother Mery Martínez, 41, said, “Talking is always better.”

“Anything that helps prevent a tragedy is good,” Martínez said. “Venezuelans don’t deserve this. A war benefits no one.”

Garcia Cano reported from Caracas, Venezuela. Associated Press writer Jorge Rueda in Caracas contributed to this report.

Thousands of veterans discharged from service during former President Joe Biden’s administration for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine may regain eligibility for GI Bill education benefits, according to a Monday Department of Veterans Affairs announcement.

Over 8,000 service members across the military were separated from service during the Biden administration for not complying with the Defense Department’s COVID mandate, which required all service members to be fully vaccinated against the virus.

Service members who refused the order were dismissed with "general, under honorable conditions" classifications, hindering their ability to receive veterans benefits, such as GI Bill assistance.

In a January executive order, President Donald Trump reinstated those discharged under the previous mandate, stating that the vaccine mandate was an unfair and unnecessary burden on the service members.

“The Biden Administration’s authoritarian COVID mandates upended the lives and livelihoods of thousands of service members and veterans,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in the announcement. “We are proud to help implement President Trump’s executive order and make these veterans whole again.”

After the executive order, the Defense Department sent “letters of apology” in April to more than 8,700 service members who involuntarily separated and sent correspondence to members who voluntarily separated, urging them to return to service.

“One of the most atrocious attacks on our military by the previous administration was the discharging and targeting of perfectly healthy warfighters who refused to take an experimental vaccine implemented by an illegal mandate,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in the announcement.

“We must never let that happen again, and we must also right the wrongs of the past in order to restore trust.”

Of those discharged, there are currently 899 veterans eligible for GI Bill education benefits, the Defense Department found, but more could qualify.

According to the announcement, the VA sent letters in September to veterans who already received upgraded discharges to alert them of this possibility, but the department urges all who were dismissed for refusing the vaccine to seek an upgraded status and apply for GI Bill benefits.

Evaluated on strictly tactical terms, the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941 has been praised for its precision and criticized for the importance of targets it neglected. The Japanese focused their effort against warships and aircraft, but overlooked fuel stores and a new fleet oiler, USS Neosho (AO-23). Although Neosho would be eliminated five months later — and even then, due to misidentification — its presence over those months kept the recuperating United States Navy operational in a desperate hour — and produced a Medal of Honor recipient amid its last fight.

Oscar Verner Peterson was born Aug. 27, 1899 in Prentiss, Wisconsin, and swiftly grew into his chosen career, enlisting in the U.S. Navy on Dec. 8, 1920. By the end of 1941, he was Chief Water Tender (chief petty officer) aboard Neosho, which had just been commissioned in 1939.

“She simply was the kind of unglamorous workhorse without which a modern navy could not operate,” writes historian Robert C. Stern. “Excepting a few token defensive guns, no one would ever mistake her for a warship. But against all odds, not only did the Neosho have a combat career, she had an extraordinary one.”

Capable of carrying 146,000 barrels of fuel, the ship was delivering aviation gas at Ford Island on Dec. 6, 1941. The next morning saw it tied up in Battleship Row. And while the Japanese were targeting the battleship Maryland (BB-46), their bombs fell nearer to Neosho as it cast off its moorings.

Its three 3”-23 caliber anti-aircraft and one 5”-51 caliber gun were among the first to fire back against the enemy that December day.

Narrowly missing the Oklahoma, the Neosho backed its way into mid-channel and slipped into Southeast Loch. Three of the oiler’s crew were wounded by strafing, while its gunners claimed to have shot down a Japanese plane. Otherwise unscathed through the carnage, Neosho played an important role supporting the aircraft carriers that had likewise avoided the disaster at Pearl Harbor.

The fate that Neosho initially managed to avoid finally caught up during the Battle of the Coral Sea,however.

On May 1, 1942, Neosho fueled up carrier Yorktown (CV-5) for the coming fight. As the main carrier forces closed on each other, Rear Adm. Frank Jack Fletcher, commanding Lexington (CV-2) and Yorktown, ordered Neosho to withdraw south of his force, with destroyer Sims (DD-409) for escort.

Ironically, Neosho became involved in the battle by mistaken identity.

At 0722 hours on the 7th, it was spotted by two patrolling Nakajima B5N2s from the Japanese Shokaku, whose crews reported it to be an “aircraft carrier.”

Vice Adm. Chuichi Hara sent contingents from both of his flattops to dispose of that threat and in the ensuing action Neosho took seven dive bomber hits, with another eight near misses.

Even then, some crewmen manned the oiler’s anti-aircraft guns, setting fire to a Zuikaku D3A crewed by Petty Officer 2nd Class Shigeo Ishizuki and Petty Officer 3rd Class Kawagoe Masayoshi.

Judging his plane doomed, Ishizuki pulled up enough to drop his bomb and then crashed into Neosho’s No.4 gun, further spreading the fire. At the same time, USS Sims was hit by three bombs, one of which which caused a boiler explosion causing the destroyer to sink within minutes, taking all but 15 of its 250-man crew with it.

Neosho was turned into a floating conflagration, but its crew did all they could to save it, most notably Chief Water Tender Peterson, who led a repair party throughout the uneven encounter. As his citation describes:

“Lacking assistance because of injuries to the other members of his repair party and severely wounded himself, Peterson, with no concern for his own life, closed the bulkhead stop valves and in so doing received additional burns, which resulted in his death.”

In spite of third degree burns, Peterson’s determination in mechanically closing critical stream-line valves amid smoke and flames kept Neosho — and 123 of its crew — afloat until well after the battle.

Coral Sea ended in a tactical victory for the Japanese, seeing the sinking of Lexington, but a strategic win for the Americans, who sank the light carrier Shoho and, more important, drove back the Japanese attempt to seize Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea.

In its aftermath, the destroyer Henley (DD-391) rescued Sims’ 15 survivors and on May 11 it found Neosho, dead in the water with a 30-degree list and 21 of its crew dead. After evacuating its 123 surviving sailors — including Peterson — it finished off the valiant oiler with gunfire.

On the 13, Peterson died from the severe burns he had suffered during battle and was buried at sea.

In December 1942, Peterson’s wife, Lola, and his sons, Fred and Donald, received a letter announcing his award of the Medal of Honor. A memorial to him can be found in the “Tablets of the Missing” in the American Cemetery in Manila, Philippines.

On June 27, 2025, he was further memorialized when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the underway replenishment oiler Harvey Milk (AT-AO-206) renamed Oscar V. Peterson.

HO CHI MINH CITY, Vietnam — Despite U.S. interest in deeper military ties with Vietnam, the Nov. 2 visit by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, during which he met Communist Party leader To Lam and Defense Minister Phan Van Giang, did not yield an expected announcement on arms sales.

“Deeper [military] cooperation will benefit both of our countries,” Hegseth said ahead of his meeting with Giang.

Despite talks in recent years of Vietnam diversifying its predominantly Russian military arsenal and purchasing U.S.-made weapons, no official announcements have been made on major items. Larger efforts to turn away from Russia as its main arms supplier also appear stalled, as reports indicate Hanoi is using profits from a joint oil venture to acquire Russian weapons.

For Washington, Hanoi is seen as a pivotal partner to countering China’s aggression in the South China Sea.

Hegseth’s visit marked 30 years since the countries normalized diplomatic ties in 1995, and two years since the U.S. was upgraded to Hanoi’s highest diplomatic tier, comprehensive strategic partnership. The U.S. lifted its arms embargo on Vietnam in 2016 and has since delivered three cutters to the Vietnamese coast guard and three T-6C trainer aircraft out of an order of 12.

During Hegseth’s trip, the countries signed a memorandum of understanding on war legacy cooperation. Hegseth announced a $130 million commitment to funding the cleanup of the toxic herbicide Agent Orange, sprayed to destroy jungle foliage during the Vietnam War that continues to cause birth defects among Vietnamese. The funding would also go to clearing unexploded ordnance as well as finding and identifying the remains of American and Vietnamese soldiers. Those efforts were paused after the Trump administration froze U.S. Agency for International Development funds this year.

At the end of his meeting with Giang, Hegseth gave the defense minister a leather box, knife and belt U.S. soldiers had taken from a Vietnamese bunker outside the coastal city of Danang in 1968.

Andrew Wells-Dang, senior adviser to the nonprofit Mission: POW-MIA, said Hegseth’s visit signals that the US-Vietnam partnership continues despite tariff disputes.

“Its significance is that both countries recognize war legacy issues, including the search for missing persons from both sides, is the foundation for security relations,” he told Military Times by WhatsApp.

“This has always been the case for the Vietnamese of course, and it’s important that the U.S. officials agree too,” he wrote.

Nguyen Khac Giang, a visiting fellow at Singapore’s ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, told Military Times that the commitment on war remediation was positive but there appeared to be little movement on arms sales.

“On the defense cooperation, we have seen a lot of talks and promises but we haven’t seen anything really concrete,” he said.

While no arms purchase was announced, Lam, the party leader, described defense cooperation as key to the countries’ partnership. He called defense cooperation “one of the most important pillars of bilateral relations,” the local Voice of Vietnam outlet reported, and he urged continued U.S. support for postwar recovery and for “substantive defense cooperation on the basis of respecting Vietnam’s independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, foreign and defense principles.”

Stalled arms deals?

Beyond official statements, reports indicate deeper talks on arms supplies are in the works. Two unnamed Vietnamese sources and one unnamed U.S. official told Reuters weapons procurement would dominate the Hegseth visit agenda, including possible purchase of Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules cargo planes and S-92 helicopters and Boeing Chinook helicopters, but neither Lockheed Martin nor the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi would comment. The Vietnamese Embassy in Washington did not reply to questions.

In April, Hanoi said it would buy at least 24 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets but no progress has been reported. The potential C-130 deal surfaced in September of last year after Defense Minister Giang visited Washington. Later, at Hanoi’s December Defense Expo, Vietnam’s deputy defense minister was filmed saying Hanoi had ordered the cargo planes.

Ray Powell, executive director of Indo-Pacific-focused maritime transparency nonprofit SeaLight and former U.S. air attaché to Vietnam, said F-16 sales are unlikely because of Chinese pressure.

“If Vietnam were to buy US F-16s that would certainly aggravate China,” he said. C-130s, as nonlethal cargo planes, would be less likely to rankle Beijing, he said, adding that similar thinking went into the U.S. supplying Vietnam with T-6C training aircraft, an effort led by Powell while air attaché.

“Part of the reason we picked the T-6 as the way to go is because politically it’s not nearly as sensitive as something like a fighter,” he said.

Nguyen Khac Giang said the C-130 deal is likely bogged down by bureaucracy but that the delays could also signify deeper trust issues, especially amid reports that Hanoi is purchasing Russian fighter jets.

“The case of the C-130 is a very obvious delay in defense cooperation,” he said. “It’s mostly bureaucratic hurdles but, nevertheless, if you put that into the comparison with Vietnam’s recent alleged purchase of 40 Su fighters from Russia, I think that may signal some potential trust issues between the two sides.”

Russian arms reports

In September, the Associated Press reported that Hanoi planned to buy Russian weapons through profits from Rusvietpro – a joint oil venture with Russia’s Zarubezhneft – to skirt sanctions by bypassing the international SWIFT network for financial transactions.

In October, The New York Times reported that Hanoi had ordered $8 billion worth of Russian arms, including 40 new Su-35 and Su-30 fighter jets, though deliveries would be delayed by Moscow’s war on Ukraine. Leaked data from hacker group black8mirror in September indicated Vietnam was set to receive nine electronic warfare systems in 2024, and 26 components for mobile ground-based systems that can jam radar-guided missiles this year.

Despite Russian weapons’ lower quality, Powell said the dependence on Russian weapons stems from shared history, corruption and cost incentives.

“Vietnam has been buying Russian weapons for generations and so some of it I think is inertia,” Powell said.

“They know that they have to end up going back and paying more for repairs and parts [for Russian weapons]. ... It’s just when the price point for the initial purchase is cheaper, it’s harder to justify buying the expensive Western product when you can get the cheaper Russian product. Also, again, there are people who get paid, and that’s just a fact.”

Washington appears to be looking the other way on Vietnam purchasing Russian weapons because Hanoi is key to countering Beijing’s growing regional power, he said.

“Geopolitically, we don’t want to alienate these potential partners,” Powell said. “We want these guys with us.”

As Southeast Asian nations are frustrated by policy uncertainty, Nguyen Khac Giang said he sees Hanoi making diplomatic gestures showing its solidarity with Cold War allies.

In October, To Lam went to North Korea, the first official visit by a Vietnamese leader in decades. Meanwhile, Lam attended a Red Square military parade in May.

“The trust of U.S. strategic reliability in Southeast Asia has declined quite significantly,” Giang said.

“It’s the unpredictable policy terms, whether it’s tariff policy, or trade, or USAID.”

“This makes Vietnam think twice in terms of upgrading their defense cooperation with the U.S. because they don’t know what will happen next year or even next month,” he added.

“This kind of uncertainty is very harmful to U.S. interests in making their allies and partners in the region in regards to the great power competition with China,’’ he said.

Meanwhile, Collin Koh Swee Lean, senior fellow at Singapore’s Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, said Hanoi must balance maintaining close ties with China, building ties with the U.S., and working with its neighbors to counter their “common adversary” at sea – Beijing.

“Hanoi has been navigating it quite deftly, it’s trying to manage all sides at once,” he said. “The sort of consensus that [South China Sea claimants] have arrived at is: ‘You do what you need to do, I’ll do what I need to do, and we just remember that we have one common problem in mind, which is China.’”

One of the ironic tales to emerge retrospectively from World War I concerns a young Adolf Hitler, a regimental trench-runner in the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment. Allegedly, his commanding officer, Hugo Gutmann, while recommending him for the Iron Cross First Class for courage under fire, denied him a promotion on the grounds that he lacked the leadership qualities.

That story, true or not, makes for an interesting comparison to a trench runner in the American Expeditionary Forces, a private whose initiative — and leadership under fire — far exceeded expectations.

Sterling Lewis Morelock was born on June 5, 1890, in Silver Run, Maryland. His father, Addison Morelock, was a bookkeeper. His mother, Sarah, died in July 1912, after which Morelock, who was then working as a laborer, moved in with Charles and Lena Holmes in Oquawka, Illinois.

When the United States entered World War I, Morelock enlisted and after training, was assigned to Company M, 28th Infantry Regiment of the 1st Division. He and three others carried communiques throughout the company, dodging enemy snipers, machine gunners and artillery along the way.

Morelock and his colleagues were engaged in a risky enough business, but circumstances handed them a new set of cards on Oct. 4, 1918, as the AEF launched Phase Two of its offensive across the Meuse River and into the Argonne Forest. The first phase had been a murderous slog into well prepared German defenses between Sept. 26 and Oct. 1, when Gen. John J. Pershing called a halt. When the advance resumed, the exhausted 91st, 79th, 37th and 35th divisions were replaced by the 33rd, 3rd and 1st divisions.

Near the town of Exermont, the 28th Infantry made its bid for a breakthrough, only to be stopped by heavy enemy fire.

Morelock’s detachment ran messages between Company M and headquarters but in the process he seems to have spotted an opportunity.

According to his citation, Morelock voluntarily led his three comrades “as a patrol in advance of the front line through intensive intense rifle, artillery and machine gun fire and penetrated a woods which formed the German front line. Encountering a series of five hostile machine-gun nests, containing from one to five machine guns each, with his patrol he cleaned them all out, gained and held complete mastery of the situation until his company commander arrived with reinforcements, even though his entire party had become casualties. He rendered first aid to the injured and evacuated them by using stretcher bearers 10 German prisoners whom he had captured.”

While dressing his company commander’s wound, Morelock was himself hit — suffering a severe wound to the hip and forcing his evacuation.

Phase Two of the Meuse-Argonne Campaign lasted until Oct. 28. The third produced the front-wide breakthrough through the German V. Armee (V Corps) that led to the armistice.

Morelock’s four-man offensive had contributed markedly to the 1st Division’s opening breakthrough on the first day. For that, he received the Medal of Honor in 1922. Morelock paid a heavy personal price, however, as he was in and out of hospitals for 11 years before finally getting a steel hip replacement. It influenced the rest of his life, as he served as Guard for Department of Agriculture, Veterans Administration until 1957. He was also active with American veterans from 1933 to retirement in 1962.

Morelock died on Sept. 1, 1964, leaving behind a widow and two adopted daughters. He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

The nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier arrived in the Caribbean Sea on Sunday in a display of U.S. military power, raising questions about what the new influx of troops and weaponry could signal for the Trump administration’s intentions in South America as it conducts military strikes against vessels suspected of transporting drugs.

The arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford and other warships, announced by the Navy in a statement, marks a major moment in what the administration insists is a counterdrug operation but has been seen as an escalating pressure tactic against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Since early September, U.S. strikes have killed at least 80 people in 20 attacks on small boats accused of transporting drugs in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean.

The Ford rounds off the largest buildup of U.S. firepower in the region in generations. With its arrival, the “Operation Southern Spear” mission includes nearly a dozen Navy ships and about 12,000 sailors and Marines.

The carrier strike group, which includes squadrons of fighter jets and guided-missile destroyers, transited the Anegada Passage near the British Virgin Islands on Sunday morning, the Navy said.

Rear Adm. Paul Lanzilotta, who commands the strike group, said it will bolster an already large force of American warships to “protect our nation’s security and prosperity against narco-terrorism in the Western Hemisphere.”

Adm. Alvin Holsey, the commander who oversees the Caribbean and Latin America, said in a statement that the American forces “stand ready to combat the transnational threats that seek to destabilize our region.”

Holsey, who will retire next month after just a year on the job, said the strike group’s deployment is “a critical step in reinforcing our resolve to protect the security of the Western Hemisphere and the safety of the American Homeland.”

In Trinidad and Tobago, which is only 7 miles from Venezuela at its closest point, government officials said troops have begun “training exercises” with the U.S. military that will run through much of the week.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Sean Sobers described the joint exercises as the second in less than a month and said they are aimed at tackling violent crime on the island nation, which has become a stopover point for drug shipments headed to Europe and North America. The prime minister has been a vocal supporter of the U.S. military strikes.

The exercises will include Marines from the 22nd Expeditionary Unit who have been stationed aboard the Navy ships that have been looming off Venezuela’s coast for months.

Venezuela’s government has described the training exercises as an act of aggression. It had no immediate comment Sunday on the arrival of the aircraft carrier.

The administration has insisted that the buildup is focused on stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S., but it has released no evidence to support its assertions that those killed in the boats were “narcoterrorists.” Trump has indicated military action would expand beyond strikes by sea, saying the U.S. would “stop the drugs coming in by land.”

The U.S. has long used aircraft carriers to pressure and deter aggression by other nations because their warplanes can strike targets deep inside another country. Some experts say the Ford is ill-suited to fighting cartels, but it could be an effective instrument of intimidation for Maduro in a push to get him to step down.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the United States does not recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. Rubio has called Venezuela’s government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs.

Maduro, who faces charges of narcoterrorism in the U.S., has said the U.S. government is “fabricating” a war against him. Venezuela’s government recently touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks.

Trump has justified the attacks on drug boats by saying the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels while claiming the boats are operated by foreign terror organizations.

He has faced pushback from leaders in the region, the U.N. human rights chief and U.S. lawmakers, including Republicans, who have pressed for more information on who is being targeted and the legal justification for the boat strikes.

Senate Republicans, however, recently voted to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

Experts disagree on whether or not American warplanes may be used to strike land targets inside Venezuela. Either way, the 100,000-ton warship is sending a message.

“This is the anchor of what it means to have U.S. military power once again in Latin America,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, the International Crisis Group’s senior analyst for the Andes region. “And it has raised a lot of anxieties in Venezuela but also throughout the region. I think everyone is watching this with sort of bated breath to see just how willing the U.S. is to really use military force.”

PORT AU PRINCE, Haiti — A group of suspected Haitian gang members fired this week on American forces protecting the U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince, a spokesman said Saturday, in an incident that highlighted the tense security situation in the Caribbean nation.

Capt. Steven J. Keenan, a spokesman for the U.S. Marines, wrote in an email that the shooting, which came to light this weekend, happened Thursday, adding that the Marines returned fire. No Marines were hurt in the attack.

Haitian police were not immediately available to comment on the exchange of fire.

Gangs control 90% of Haiti’s capital, where they extort businesses and fight for territory, using heavy weaponry.

The United States continues to operate an embassy in Haiti, but in recent years the State Department has issued numerous warnings telling Americans not to travel there, due to the risk of kidnappings, crimes, terrorist activity and civil unrest.

According to the United Nations, gang violence has displaced more than 1.3 million Haitians from their homes in recent years.

Security in the nation of nearly 12 million people has deteriorated rapidly since 2021, when President Jovenel Moise was assassinated in his home by mercenaries.

The president’s murder has generated a power vacuum that politicians in the nation have struggled to fill, and no elections have been held to replace Moise.

In late September, the United Nations Security Council voted to create a gang suppression force of about 5,500 troops that will be deployed to Haiti to fight the nation’s heavily armed criminal groups.

A smaller force of police officers from Kenya has struggled to contain gangs, which killed 5,600 people last year, according to the U.N. Human Rights Office.

The U.S. Marine Corps has deployed a unit equipped with MQ-9A Reaper drones to the South China Sea to provide support to Philippine forces there amid a series of clashes with Chinese vessels. The unit is deployed on a temporary basis and the drones are unarmed, a Marine Corps spokesperson told Defense News in a statement.

“At the request of the Philippine government, Marine Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron (VMU) 1 is temporarily deployed to the Philippines to support Philippine regional maritime security through shared maritime domain awareness,” the spokesperson said.

“The temporary stationing of unarmed MQ-9As to the Philippines demonstrates mutual commitment to improving the collective maritime security and supports our common goal for a free and open Indo-Pacific,” the statement said.

The MQ-9 Reaper is an extremely powerful and reliable unmanned aerial vehicle known for its stealth, endurance and robust design. With an array of sensors and extensive range capacity, it can fly nonstop for over 27 hours and can be used for a wide range of operations, including reconnaissance, close air support, search and rescue, and precision strikes.

The Pentagon recently resurrected a defunct World War II fighter squadron as an MQ-9 Reaper unit to be permanently based at Kunsan Air Base in South Korea as a deterrent to potential threats.

The deployment of Reapers to the South Pacific is part of recent Pentagon efforts to provide support to the Philippines amid fierce confrontations with Chinese vessels in the South China Sea.

Chinese vessels have been taking increasingly aggressive measures in trying to chase Philippine vessels away from uninhabited shoals, shooting at fishing boats with water cannons and pursuing them. In August, two Chinese warships collided while trying to drive off the Philippine coast guard.

In the aftermath of the warship collision, the U.S. deployed a guided missile destroyer and a littoral combat ship to the disputed area. The U.S. also committed to build a fast boat facility on the western coast of Palawan, a Philippine island province, for use by the country’s armed forces for South China Sea patrols.

Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 arrives with the weight of two decades of expectations behind it, yet the newest entry in Treyarch’s signature series feels less like a victory lap and more like a course correction.

The studio spent years building this game, and the result is a tightly constructed mix of single-player storytelling, revamped multiplayer balance and an ambitious Zombies mode that sets the tone for the next era of the franchise.

For veterans who grew up with the series or served while these games shaped pop culture, Black Ops 7 lands in familiar territory. It returns to a grounded tone, drops most of the sci-fi spectacle and focuses again on the psychological impact of covert operations.

The result is stronger than expected, though not without its rough edges.

The campaign is the clearest example of both the game’s strengths and its frustrating limitations. Set during a tense chapter of Cold War history, the story follows a joint team of CIA operatives and military advisers chasing a rogue threat across multiple continents.

It is fast, cinematic and often gripping. One mission can be a stealth infiltration in a rain-soaked alley, followed minutes later by a frantic rooftop escape under heavy enemy fire.

That momentum also exposes the campaign’s biggest flaw. It is simply too short.

The game hits its stride in the final third, then ends before those stakes can fully mature. Characters who deserve more time are rushed through critical moments. Those who look for depth, honesty and a clear presentation of choices may find themselves wishing Treyarch had given these operators more space to breathe. The emotional beats land, but they do not linger.

For many veterans, the story will still resonate. Military service intersects with sacrifice, accountability and the moral weight of taking action, and Black Ops 7 takes those ideas seriously.

It avoids caricature and glamorizing operators, and handles tough decisions with a respectful tone. Veterans who spent years in environments defined by trust in leadership may see a more honest reflection of themselves here than in several recent entries.

Attention to detail in movements, breaching sequences and communication patterns also feels closer to modern doctrine than the exaggerated Hollywood style of older titles, though some encounters still lean too heavily on spectacle.

Multiplayer remains the center of gravity for most players, and Black Ops 7 delivers a more stable launch than usual.

The time to kill is consistent, weapon balance is stronger out of the gate and map design favors clear lanes and recognizable flow. Matches feel controlled instead of chaotic. Players who crave structure may appreciate the tactical pacing.

The problems arise after a few hours of play. Some maps are instantly memorable while others feel generic, and several playlist rotations become repetitive quickly.

A few early weapon choices already overshadow others, which creates pressure to use the same handful of loadouts. The skill-based matchmaking also feels more aggressive than ever, which may frustrate players looking for casual sessions instead of sweat-heavy intensity.

Zombies mode makes one of its strongest returns in years, supported by improved storytelling and a clear long-term plan for expansion. The mode draws on Cold War-era experiments and a growing scientific threat, giving it a darker and more grounded foundation.

Still, the mode is not perfect. New players may feel overwhelmed by layered systems and complex objectives. Players who want a simple cooperative survival experience may miss the older, more straightforward design. The mode also relies heavily on future seasonal content to mature, which means the best version of Zombies may not exist until much later.

The complete package feels like a studio trying to rebuild trust with longtime fans. Recent entries suffered from uneven pacing, annual release demands and shifting creative direction.

Black Ops 7 feels unified in a way that suggests Treyarch was finally given the space to experiment and refine. Even so, its flaws remind players that the series is still recovering from years of rushed production schedules. The campaign needs another hour of depth. Multiplayer will require balance tuning. Zombies will need clearer guidance for new players.

For many service members and veterans, video games provide a release valve. They offer a way to decompress at home and reconnect with old friends. When Call of Duty takes itself seriously, respects the profession it draws inspiration from and avoids turning conflict into spectacle, it earns the trust of players who lived the real version.

Black Ops 7 comes closer to that ideal than most recent entries. It is not a recruitment poster. It is not a political statement. It is a high-intensity shooter that treats its characters with respect and acknowledges the seriousness of the world it reflects.

If future updates continue in this direction, Black Ops 7 may be remembered as the moment the franchise regained its footing.

The Netherlands American Cemetery and Memorial in Margraten, the only American military cemetery in the Netherlands, has quietly removed panels displaying the contributions of Black American soldiers during WWII, sparking outrage from Dutch and American citizens.

One of the two displays featured an overall history of Black American military personnel fighting a double V campaign — victory at home and abroad — while the other told the story of George H. Pruitt, a Black soldier in the 43rd Signal Construction Battalion who drowned a month after the war’s end while attempting to save a comrade’s life in a German river.

The two panels were added to the visitor center in September 2024 after the American Battle Monuments Commission, a U.S. government agency that oversees the cemetery, received criticism from families and historians for not including the contributions of Black service members and their experiences fighting in the Netherlands.

At the time of publishing, ABMC did not respond to requests for comment from Military Times. The commission, however, told Dutch news outlets that one panel is “off display, though not out of rotation,” although a second panel was “retired.”

The panels were reportedly rotated out in early March, one month after President Donald Trump’s executive order terminated diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives across the federal government.

The same month the panels were removed, The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, contacted the ABMC for its supposed failure to comply with Trump’s anti-DEI initiatives.

“ABMC is fully compliant with the president’s executive order,” wrote its chief of public affairs to Heritage. “ABMC does not have a stand-alone DEI office or any DEI contracts. ABMC’s chief diversity officer has been placed on administrative leave, pending additional guidance from [the Office of Personnel Management].”

Priscilla Rayson, ABMC’s chief diversity officer, was placed on administrative leave shortly thereafter.

Kees Ribbens, a senior researcher at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and a history professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam, was among the first to draw attention to the displays’ removal in Dutch media, telling The Guardian, “I grew up in South Limburg but it was not until much later that I learned that the cemetery had been constructed by Black Americans under difficult conditions, beginning in late 1944.”

Among such men was 1st Sgt. Jefferson Wiggins of the 960th Quartermaster Service Company, one of more than 900,000 Black men and women who served in the U.S. military during WWII.

Wiggins and the men of the 960th QSC were tasked with the grim job of burying American dead in Margraten.

What was once a fruit orchard would become the final resting place for some 8,300 U.S. soldiers, including 172 Black servicemen. In 2009, Wiggins recounted to historian Mieke Kirkels how the work was done under horrific conditions, often with only rudimentary tools like pickaxes and shovels to dig the graves.

“There was a permanent arrival of bodies, the whole day long. Sundays included, seven days a week,” Wiggins recalled. “I find it difficult, even now, to read in the paper that soldiers ‘gave their lives.’ … All those boys in Margraten, their lives were taken away.”

He continued, “And here we all were — this group of Black Americans having to deal with these bodies of White Americans. The stark reality was we had to bury those soldiers although we couldn’t sit in the same room with them when they were alive.”

Wiggin’s widow, Janice, rejected ABMC’s statements that the panels’ removal was part of a rotation, telling CNN that the “panels were never intended to be part of a traveling exhibit or rotation. [The panels] were intended to be a permanent part of the Visitors Center exhibits.”

Upon learning of the panels’ removal, Dutch politicians and civilians have appealed to both ABMC and Joseph Popolo Jr., the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands, to have the displays reinstated.

On Monday, Alain Krijnen, the mayor of Eijsden-Margraten, sent a letter commission, writing, “We would greatly appreciate it if the story of the Black Liberators — like the 172 Black Liberators buried in Margraten — could be given permanent attention in the visitor center, and [we ask you to] therefore reconsider the removal of the displays.

“We cherish our good and long-standing relationship and consider the ABMC an excellent storyteller and manager of the American Cemetery in Margraten. We are convinced that you will seriously consider this request for permanent attention to the story of the Black Liberators in the visitor center.”

The most advanced U.S. aircraft carrier is expected to reach the waters off Venezuela in days, a flex of American military power not seen in Latin America for generations.

Experts disagree on the possibility that American warplanes will catapult off the USS Gerald R. Ford to bomb targets inside Venezuela and further pressure authoritarian President Nicolás Maduro to step down. Still, whether it may serve that purpose or only patrols the Caribbean as the U.S. blows up boats it accuses of trafficking drugs, the presence of the 100,000-ton warship alone is sending a message.

“This is the anchor of what it means to have U.S. military power once again in Latin America,” said Elizabeth Dickinson, the International Crisis Group’s senior analyst for the Andes region. “And it has raised a lot of anxieties in Venezuela but also throughout the region. I think everyone is watching this with sort of bated breath to see just how willing the U.S. is to really use military force.”

A list of US military strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels

The Ford’s impending arrival is a major moment in the Trump administration’s campaign in South America, which it describes as a counterdrug operation. It escalates the already massive buildup of military firepower in the region, with added pressure from bomber training runs near the Venezuelan coast, CIA operations that have been publicly authorized inside the country and boat strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean that have killed over 75 people.

The U.S. has long used aircraft carriers as tools of deterrence to pressure and influence other nations, often without employing any force at all. They carry thousands of sailors and dozens of warplanes that can strike targets deep inside another country.

Trump administration says it’s focused on fighting drug trafficking

Secretary of State Marco Rubio insists that President Donald Trump is focused on stopping drugs from entering the U.S. by combatting “organized criminal narcoterrorists.”

“That’s what he’s authorized. That’s what the military’s doing. That’s why our assets are there,” he told reporters Wednesday after meeting his counterparts from the Group of Seven democracies in Canada.

But Rubio also says the U.S. doesn’t recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as the leader of Venezuela and called the government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs toward the U.S.

Some experts say deploying the Ford appears to be geared more toward a government change in Venezuela than drug trafficking.

“There’s nothing that an aircraft carrier brings that is useful for combating the drug trade,” Dickinson said. “I think it’s clearly a message that is much more geared toward pressuring Caracas.”

Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and defense analyst at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank, said the Trump administration would not have deployed the Ford “if they didn’t intend to use it.”

“I think this administration is very open to using military force to accomplish particular objectives,” Clark said. “I think they’re going to want to actually do some military operations unless Maduro steps down in the next month or so.”

After Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed lawmakers last week, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said they gave no indication that the strikes would be stopping but also indicated that they were targeting cocaine traffickers and not overtly intending to overthrow Maduro.

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel and a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, expects U.S. warships to launch missiles from other ships before launching any American warplanes. He said Venezuela has relatively sophisticated missile defense systems from Russia that could put American pilots at risk.

“Because they have so many systems, some are relatively new, and all are mobile, we probably wouldn’t get them all,” Cancian said. “So there’s some risk that we could lose some aircraft.”

Venezuela mobilizes for possible attack

Venezuela’s government this week touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks. Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López said in a statement that “land, air, naval, riverine, and missile assets” would be part of a two-day readiness effort “to confront imperialist threats.”

State television showed members of the military, police and militias standing in formations across the country. Padrino also delivered remarks, broadcast on state television, standing by a surface-to-air missile system in a military base in the capital, Caracas.

Maduro, who faces charges of narcoterrorism in the U.S., has insisted the Trump administration’s intentions are to force him from power. Venezuela’s U.S.-backed political opposition has renewed its promise of an imminent government change.

David Smilde, a Tulane University professor who has studied Venezuela for more than 30 years, said the U.S. military does not have enough manpower in the region, even with the aircraft carrier, for an invasion.

“It’s consistent with this desire to demonstrate credible force, which they had already,” Smilde said of the carrier. “It doesn’t change the equation. I don’t think that the fact that it is there means that they necessarily have to strike. It just means that Trump and Hegseth have not forgotten about this, and they are still onboard in trying to generate a regime change through a show of force.”

Smilde said Venezuela’s political opposition has long told U.S. officials that “just a credible threat of force” would cause Maduro’s government to crumble. For Trump, he said, that would be the best outcome of this operation.

Pushback on intelligence

The U.S. actions have faced pushback in the region, in Congress and among rights organizations. However, Senate Republicans voted last week to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who was recently hit with U.S. sanctions over allegations of aiding the drug trade, on Tuesday announced he was cutting off intelligence sharing with the longtime North American ally until the strikes stop. But he softened his stance the following day, saying the sharing would continue as long as agencies guarantee it won’t be used in actions that jeopardize human rights.

Rubio pushed back on reports that the United Kingdom has halted some intelligence sharing in the region over concerns about the strikes, saying U.S. assets in the region provide such information.

The U.S. is not “asking anyone to help us with what we’re doing — in any realm. And that includes the military,” he said.

Mexico, however, is stepping up its cooperation with the U.S. in targeting drug trafficking. President Claudia Sheinbaum said Thursday that her administration made an agreement with the U.S. for Mexico’s navy to intercept boats in international waters near Mexico that the U.S. alleges are carrying drugs to avoid any more strikes off its coast.

‘A use-it-or-lose-it kind of situation’

The Ford, originally deployed to the Mediterranean Sea, was within the U.S. Southern Command region but not yet in the Caribbean. The carrier was in the mid-Atlantic on Thursday, a defense official who wasn’t authorized to discuss the matter said on condition of anonymity.

Clark said sending the Ford to South America would have a minimal impact on costs and readiness in the short term because it still has a month or two left on its regularly scheduled deployment.

Cancian, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the U.S. can’t afford to have the Ford “dawdling around the Caribbean” for long. It’s such a powerful military asset that it may be needed elsewhere, such as the Middle East.

“It’s a use-it-or-lose-it kind of situation,” he said.

Garcia Cano reported from Caracas, Venezuela.

First used by the 1st Air Commando in World War II, the Sikorsky R-4 often fell short of its role in rescuing airmen downed in the mountains and rainforests of the China-Burma-India front but as the first helicopter designed to perform such tasks it set the precedent for a new generation of rotary aircraft. A vastly improved design, the Sikorsky S-51 first took off in February 1946 and got its baptism of fire just four years later when North Korea invaded the South. Among the pioneers who demonstrated what it could do was John Koelsch.

Born on Dec. 22, 1923, in London, England, to American parents, Koelsch and his family returned to the U.S. just one year later, settling in Briarcliff Manor, New York. Koelsch enrolled in Princeton University on Sept. 1, 1941, but when the United States entered World War II, he postponed his collegiate studies to enlist in the United States Naval Reserve on Sept. 14, 1942, and took up aviation.

He received his ensign’s commission on Oct. 23, 1944, and served in the Pacific, flying TBM Avengers. Koelsch returned to Princeton after the war, completing his education in 1949.

Koelsch had planned a career in law, but when news arrived of war in Korea on June 25, 1950, he applied for transfer from reserve to active duty, ditching the plane for a helicopter.

According to the Department of Defense, Koelsch made a name for himself while stationed aboard the USS Princeton, rescuing at least two crew members, designing devices to help with operations during Korea’s harsh winter, and developing a floating sling hoist that he used during the mission that saw him receive him the Medal of Honor.

On July 3, 1951, while piloting a Navy helicopter, Koelsch received word that Marine Capt. James V. Wilkins’ Vought F4U Corsair had been struck by North Korean anti-aircraft artillery.

Unarmed and with no fighter escort, Koelsch and crewmate, Petty Officer 3rd Class George Neal, set off towards the North Korean-held territory.

It was late in the day, overcast was thick and so was enemy ground fire, but without hesitation, Koelsch and Neal hastened out and managed to find him in what Wilkins later called “the greatest display of guts I’ve ever seen.”

Wilkins had suffered burned and injured legs, so Neal rode the rescue device down, exposed to enemy fire, but just as contact was made and Koelsch tried to lift off, his helicopter was hit and crashed on a mountaintop.

Neither Koelsch nor Neal were seriously hurt and over the next nine days Koelsch cared for Wilkins as best his limited resources allowed until the trio was finally found and taken prisoner.

By then, North Koreans had a well-established reputation as unpredictable captors, often prone to murder, but Koelsch found one with whom he could communicate and convinced him to treat Wilkins’ injuries separately.

He and Neal, on the other hand, underwent standard North Korean interrogation by torture, though neither gave up any information. After the signing of the armistice at Panmunjom on July 27, 1953, Neal and Wilkins were on the list of the surviving UN prisoners of war to be released.

Koelsch was not.

Records indicate that the pilot had died of malnutrition and dysentery on Oct. 16, 1951. Belated though it was, though, Koelsch had carried out his mission: the men he’d set out to rescue ultimately made it home.

On Aug. 3, 1955, Koelsch was posthumously awarded the first Medal of Honor issued to a helicopter pilot. He also received the Purple Heart and POW Medal, and on June 8, 1965, his name was given to the destroyer escort Koelsch (DE-1049), redesignated in 1975 as a missile frigate (FF-1049).

His partner Neal, who also happened to be among the first Black helicopter crewmen in the Navy, received the Navy Cross. Neal died on Dec. 1, 2016, aged 86, and both he and Koelsch are buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

A Marine veteran who died of cancer on the eve of the Corps’ 250th birthday won his battle for benefits for his surviving sons and was awarded medical retirement Monday by the Board for Correction of Naval Records.

Navy Secretary John Phelan announced on social media that Marine Sgt. Kevin Lloyd, who died Sunday after a long battle with colorectal cancer, is eligible for retirement benefits and Combat-Related Special Compensation.

Lloyd and his ex-wife, Alicia Rose Urban, had fought to have his medical discharge changed to retirement as a result of his illness, which they said was misdiagnosed when he left service in 2015.

Lloyd, who was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, served three tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He developed migraines and abdominal pain and was medically discharged and awarded an 80% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs for service-connected conditions.

In 2023, however, he was diagnosed with colorectal cancer that had spread throughout his body. The disease is considered by the VA to be related to exposure to burn pits used overseas during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom to dispose of garbage and waste.

Survivors of veterans who die of a service-connected condition such as Lloyd’s receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, but Lloyd petitioned for his discharge to be changed to medical retirement, which ensures that the Defense Department provides benefits to survivors. Those include monthly compensation, medical coverage under the Tricare health program and access to military installations, including commissary and recreational benefits.

In announcing the change, Phelan said the Department of the Navy was committed to supporting military families.

“Today we mourn the loss of Sgt. Kevin Lloyd, a battle-tested Marine who served our nation with honor through multiple combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. … Caring for Sgt. Lloyd’s family and honoring his service is exactly what that commitment requires. My deepest condolences to the Lloyd family, and to Sgt. Lloyd: Thank you for your service, your sacrifice, and your example. Fair winds and following seas,” Phelan said in a post Monday on X.

Since midsummer, Urban, a critical care nurse and mother of their three sons, led a vast social media campaign across numerous platforms to call attention to her former husband’s illness, pressing for top-notch care, advanced medical treatments and support from the veteran community.

When Lloyd was given palliative radiation therapy for his metastatic cancer at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas, Urban pressed for transfer to the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston so he could receive an oral chemotherapy drug that would give him several more months with his sons.

When there was a delay in the VA’s approval to cover the medication, Urban turned to TikTok to call attention to the issue.

“Because the VA has declined to pay for the $30,000 treatment he needs, he will die. We have three children, and we are begging you to show us that his life is worth more than $30,000,” Urban said in a video.

He received the medicine later that day.

Lloyd was able to return home and Urban pressed for entry into a clinical trial but he was too ill. When he reentered the hospital, she called on veterans to come see him.

“I’ve been begging for 114 days, not for money but for presence. He’s still fighting like hell but morale is fading. Please — go. Sit [and] talk with him. Fill that waiting room,“ she wrote in a Facebook post that was widely shared on Reddit and other platforms. “Don’t let him die alone.”

She also urged the Marine Corps and lobbied Congress to change his discharge to medical retirement so his children could receive Tricare, compensation and recognition as a Gold Star family.

In the end, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz took up the case. Cruz’s office declined to say why he decided to get involved, but Urban credits Cruz and his state relations director R.W. Bray for Monday’s announcement.

“Ted Cruz’s office was the only office to return any of my calls regarding this mission,” Urban wrote on social media. “They didn’t see a claim number or an unpaid hour during a shutdown. They saw a Marine, a hero, and a father — and they kept their promise,” she wrote.

Burn pits were used in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to dispose of waste, including garbage, medical waste, batteries, munitions, plastics and other materials, generated by war on terrorism operations.

Exposure to the toxic smoke generated by the pits has been linked to a variety of cancers and illnesses. In 2022, Congress passed the PACT Act to ensure that veterans who develop illnesses related to the pits are eligible for expedited disability pay and benefits.

Funeral details have yet to be announced but according to a TikTok post earlier this month, Lloyd will be buried at Houston National Cemetery.

Phelan did not respond to a request for further comment but said in his social media post that his office is working with the Marine Corps’ Wounded Warrior Regiment to assist the family.

“Our team is collaborating … to assist Sgt. Lloyd’s dependents to navigate the Combat-Related Special Compensation process, ensuring that all earned benefits are delivered without delay,” Phelan wrote.

Wielding drones in combat missions and being able to repair them on the spot could soon become a new standard among the skills fielded by the operators of U.S. Special Operations Command, per a solicitation released Wednesday.

SOCOM wants a contractor to develop a 10-day course for six operators twice a year to train them in all aspects of building and flying first-person view drones, according to the performance work statement from Naval Special Warfare Command, which oversees the training and formation of Navy SEALs.

Special warfare operators would be trained to not only fly small drones but also develop expertise in their assembly, including soldering, wiring, circuitry and software configuration.

They will undergo 40 hours of flight instruction in indoor and outdoor environments, with pressure to master the drones quickly in the field. No more than four hours of simulations will be allowed for practice, according to the performance work statement.

As small drones continue to present new threats with incursions into NATO airspace and pose challenges to the defense of U.S. military bases, SOCOM is evidently wasting no time in getting operators up to speed. The documents show that SOCOM expects the contractor selected to present a course schedule and training plan within three days after the contract award, and aims for the course to begin Jan. 15, 2026.

BOGOTA, Colombia — Colombian President Gustavo Petro ordered his nation’s security forces Tuesday to stop sharing intelligence with the United States, until the Trump administration stops its strikes on suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean, as relations deteriorate between the nations that were once close partners in the fight against drug trafficking.

In a message on X, Petro wrote that Colombia’s military must immediately end “communications and other agreements with U.S. security agencies” until the U.S. ceases its attacks on speedboats suspected of carrying drugs, that critics have likened to extrajudicial executions.

A list of US military strikes against alleged drug-carrying vessels

Petro wrote that “the fight against drugs must be subordinated to the human rights of the Caribbean people.” It wasn’t immediately clear what kind of information Colombia will stop sharing with the United States. The White House had no immediate response to Petro’s latest statements.

At least 75 people have been killed by the U.S. military in strikes in international waters since August, according to figures supplied by the Trump administration. The strikes began in the southern Caribbean, near Venezuela’s shores, but have shifted recently to the eastern Pacific, where the U.S. has targeted boats off Mexico.

Petro has called for U.S. President Donald Trump to be investigated for war crimes over the strikes, which have affected citizens of Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Trinidad and Tobago.

The leftist leader has long been a critic of U.S. drug policy, and has accused the Trump administration of going after peasants growing coca, the base ingredient of cocaine, instead of targeting major drug traffickers and money launderers. On Sunday, Petro said that met with the family of a Colombian fisherman who was allegedly killed in one of the strikes.

“He may have been carrying fish, or he may have been carrying cocaine, but he had not been sentenced to death” Petro said during a summit between Latin American and European Union leaders hosted by Colombia on Sunday. “There was no need to murder him.”

The Trump administration has accused Petro of being soft on traffickers, and has criticized the Colombian president’s decision to spare Colombian rebel leaders involved in the drug trade form extradition to the United States.

In October, the administration placed financial sanctions on Petro and members of his family, over accusations of involvement in the global drug trade.

Petro “has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement after the sanctions were issued Oct 24. “President Trump is taking strong action to protect our nation and make clear that we will not tolerate the trafficking of drugs into our nation.”

The heightened tensions between the United States and Colombia are taking place as the U.S. ramps up its naval presence in the southern Caribbean, with eight warships, a submarine, fighter jets and marines deployed to the region. An aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, is also expected to arrive in the Caribbean this month.

Venezuela’s government has described the naval buildup as a threat to its sovereignty, with officials in that nation saying that the U.S. military is preparing to launch strikes against the embattled government of Nicolas Maduro.

The Trump administration has said its deployment is aimed at curbing drug traffickers, though Trump has also hinted there could be strikes on target within Venezuela, whose leader has been described by officials in Washington as the head of a drug cartel.

Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López announced Tuesday that military personnel, members of a civilian militia, police officers and ruling-party organizers would be mobilized for a training exercise to protect the country’s airspace. He delivered his remarks, broadcast on state television, standing by a surface-to-air missile system in a military base in the capital, Caracas, but no training activities could be seen elsewhere in the city.

Ken Burns has had a busy year.

The famed documentary filmmaker and his co-producers, Sarah Botstein and David Schmidt, have stumped across the United States, speaking, gently of course, about their upcoming docuseries, “American Revolution,” which premieres Sunday on PBS.

During their six-month promotional tour across 32 cities and 17 states, the trio has consistently delivered a nonpartisan, hopeful message to Americans.

“We think always in sort of Chicken Little terms,” Burns told an audience during a panel event at Mount Vernon, Virginia, on Oct. 29, “that our time must be the very, very worst.”

“You can have at least the possible reassurance that things were really divided back then. It was a civil war,” he said of the American Revolution. “Examining the origin story provides you with a kind of renewal and a fresh understanding.”

Burns has endeavored to provide such reassurances. The director and his team have spoken to a spectrum of media over the course of the year, from podcasters like Theo Von and Joe Rogan to MSNBC and The New York Times.

Burns spent nearly two hours on Von’s show and three on Rogan’s, with one listener noting in the latter’s YouTube comment section, “We need an annual Ken Burns discussion, if not more. This is cathartic.”

“We’re trying to reach as many people as we can,” Schmidt told Military Times in a recent interview. “If anybody wants to talk to us, we’re really happy to speak to them.”

The makings of liberty

For Burns and his team, the decision to make a documentary on the American Revolution was “spontaneous,” according to the director.

To put it into context, the year was 2015, President Barack Obama still had 13 months left in his presidency and “nobody was talking 250” — America’s semiquincentennial anniversary in 2026 — Burns told the audience at Mount Vernon.

“But I was looking at this map that we had of the Ia Drang Valley, in the central highlands [of Vietnam], and I just said, ‘That could be the British moving west on Long Island towards American positions in Brooklyn,” Burns recalled at the Mount Vernon panel. “I just went, ‘We could do it.’”

The filmmakers, however, had to get creative. Without photographs, B-roll or archival footage, the trio resorted to maps, diaries and reenactors to tell the epic tale of Great Britain’s 13 North American colonies’ fight for independence.

“We went out and filmed with reenactors,” Schmidt said of the filmmaking process, which also included commissioning watercolors from a group called Wood Ronsaville Harlin.

“Probably the most expensive line item in our budget is re-creating North America as faithfully as we could in a map,” he noted. “That was challenging, but also really fun. Waterways across America have changed since the 18th century. We had to erase the Erie Canal. Stuff like that you just don’t think of.”

Despite such challenges, according to Schmidt, the lack of visual primary sources presented opportunities to find “new ways to solve these problems.”

Over the course of several years, the trio shot original footage of nearly 100 locations within the original 13 colonies, as well as in London and the English countryside.

For 10 years — and to the tune of more than $30 million — Burns and his team built up a vast archive of knowledge.

“Part of the reason it was so exciting to make [this film] is that we got to spend a decade learning what actually happened and finding out the way to artistically shape that into a 12-hour film to share with the American people,” Schmidt shared.

“We aren’t trying to dispel myths. We’re not mythbusters out there poking holes in your understanding of the American Revolution. In fact, what we’re doing is taking what you already know and rebooting it,” he said. “It’s going to supplement what you already know and make it make more sense.”

Heart of the story

The six-part series follows more than just the well-known characters of the American Revolution.

While it includes rank-and-file Continental soldiers, militiamen and American Loyalists, the series also delves into the oft-unheard stories of Indigenous soldiers and civilians, enslaved and free African Americans, German soldiers in the British service, French and Spanish allies and an array of civilians living in North America.

The documentary highlights a war that not only touched the lives of those living within the 13 colonies, but also engaged and inspired millions of people in North America and beyond.

“The war begins in Lexington,” Schmidt said, “but it spreads all throughout — not just the original 13 colonies — but over the mountains to the Ohio River, along the Gulf Coast, even out to the Mississippi River. It’s also in the Caribbean. It’s fought off the coast of England. It’s fought in the Atlantic Ocean. It’s fought along the coast of France, along the coast of Africa, even in the Indian subcontinent — and that’s just the war.

“The ideas just grow and grow and inspire revolutions — and have inspired revolutions for the past 250 years all throughout the world. Ho Chi Minh, when he declared Vietnamese independence, had two United States OSS officers standing next to him and was quoting Thomas Jefferson in Vietnamese.”

Despite these ideas that have shaped the world since 1776 (many argue that date is even earlier), Schmidt recalls how surprised he was when learning about the original aims of the conflict.

The now-lauded notions of civilian rule and non-partisanship that created the republic that we still live under were not, says Schmidt, “on the table at the start.”

“Those weren’t war objectives,” he continued. “On April 19, 1775, they became necessary to win the war. But they were kind of outcomes of the war, rather than goals. What they were really trying to do at the start was to liberate Boston, to get a redress of grievances and to bring things back to the way they were under the British Empire. But in order to win the war, they had to involve all sorts of American people who otherwise might not get along.

“Coalition building made it a war about liberty. It made it this fight for a union. Then in order to win the war, they had to involve foreign powers. The French came in. The Spanish came in as the allies of the French. The Dutch declared war on the British,” ultimately creating a coalition war.

Former Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, who spoke alongside Burns at the panel at Mount Vernon, echoed Schmidt.

“I would argue — and I think it’d be tough to argue against it — that our strategic center of gravity as a country comes from allies and partners,” Dunford said. “There’s almost nothing that we have to deal with, certainly in the 21st century, where coherent collective action isn’t required to address a problem.”

That coalition is what makes up the heart of the documentary. Nearly 150 characters are highlighted in the series, with their stories read by a staggering 61 different voice actors, including: Kenneth Branagh, Josh Brolin, Jeff Daniels, Morgan Freeman, Paul Giamatti, Domhnall Gleeson, Tom Hanks, Ethan Hawke, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Keaton, Damian Lewis, Laura Linney, Edward Norton, Mandy Patinkin and Meryl Streep, among many others.

The military story itself features 36 battle sequences that range from the well-known, like Bunker Hill and Yorktown, to the more obscure, while showing that the American Revolution was a test of logistics and strategy as much as it was a war of ideals.

George Washington is, naturally, also front and center in the series — a point that Burns noted while speaking at the historic home of America’s first president.

“He’s our guy, and that’s pretty amazing. Look, we do not soft pedal the flaws. Not only are there really bad tactical mistakes: there’s the rashness of riding out on the battlefield, not just as Princeton but at Monmouth and Kip’s Bay; and he owns hundreds of human beings. You can’t square that circle. But we are so lucky [to have had him], and we’re here because of him.”

Civilians, not subjects

One point that Burns and his team spend considerable time exploring is the notion of citizenship.

“I’m really still overwhelmed by some of the obvious things, that for the first time, we were creating citizens, not subjects under authoritarian rule,” says Burns.

“Thomas Jefferson says, ‘All experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable.’ That just means that for most of human history, people have been under authoritarian rule and they’ve accepted it. They’ve acquiesced that those evils are sufferable. Essentially this [American] ‘project’ was to say no to that.”

The war, however violent and bloody it was (which Burns succeeds in displaying) was the vehicle for that freedom.

“I’m really proud to have worked on this film. I’m prouder to be a citizen of a country that invented that idea,” he added.

Burns ended the panel with a potent mix of patriotism grounded in history, closing with one of his favorite quotes from a Hessian soldier, Johann Ewald, who served under the British during the war.

“Who would have thought 100 years ago that out of this multitude of rabble would arise a people who could defy kings?” Ewald once quipped.

“That to me,” says Burns, “is the whole essence of the project. The right to defy kings.”

Outdoor Christmas decorations aren’t flying at U.S. Air Force base housing in the Florida Panhandle, at least not before Thanksgiving.

The private company that operates a community of homes near Tyndall Air Force Base recently instructed residents to remove their Yuletide decorations and refrain from putting them back up until after Turkey Day.

“All holiday decorations should be reflective in their respective months and not any sooner than 30 days before the given holiday,” the landlord said in the message.

Air Force Capt. Justin Davidson-Beebe, a Tyndall spokesman, said Wednesday that the landlord, Balfour Beatty Communities, had set the policy. The operations manager for the company’s Tyndall AFB Homes didn’t respond to an emailed inquiry.

“They are enforcing the community standards outlined in the legally binding lease agreement all residents voluntarily sign,” Davidson-Beebe said in an email. “These guidelines are not part of a broader Air Force policy. Since community standards are set by the privatized housing management company at some installations, standards may vary from base to base.”

The 59-page community handbook for Tyndall AFB Homes explicitly states that winter decorations and lights are only allowed from the week after Thanksgiving through New Year’s Day, and that lights can only be lit from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.

“Do not keep them lit all night or in daylight hours,” the handbook says. “They must be removed no later than the third week of January; they may not remain on the exterior year-round.”

The base located outside Panama City in Florida’s Panhandle is home to the 325th Fighter Wing. The base suffered catastrophic damage in 2018 from Hurricane Michael, a Category 5 storm. The estimated cost to rebuild the base was $4.7 billion.

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — The United States has lifted a four-year arms embargo on Cambodia after announcing a resumption of the annual Angkor Sentinel military exercises in a sign that relations between Washington and China’s tiny but key regional ally are on the mend.

Details of the resumptions were finalized by the Indonesia-based U.S. Mission to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on the sidelines of last month’s ASEAN Leaders Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, between President Donald Trump and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet.

“Based on Cambodia’s diligent pursuit of peace and security, the United States will remove the arms embargo on Cambodia, and both sides agreed to restart the bilateral Angkor Sentinel defense exercise, last held in 2017,” the mission said in an Oct. 26 statement.

Additionally, the U.S. will increase seats for Cambodian officers at U.S. military colleges such as West Point – which Hun Manet graduated from – the Air Force Academy, and others.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio formally ended the 2021 arms embargo on Friday, according to a Federal Register notice, which added that arms sales would in future be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The notice cited Cambodia’s “diligent pursuit of peace and security, including through renewed engagement with the United States on defense cooperation and combating transnational crime.”

“Lifting the arms embargo is widely viewed by regional and US analysts as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce China’s global and regional influence through a broad-based campaign,” Gavin Greenwood, a risk analyst with Hong Kong-based Allan & Associates, said.

“That ranges from imposing military and economic rewards to sanctions on those countries it is seeking to peel away from Beijing’s orbit.”

Angkor Sentinel had been a bilateral exercise between U.S. Army Pacific and the Royal Cambodian Army, focusing on training in peacekeeping and stability operations that included a battalion-level command post exercise, engineering and medical civic action projects.

“This is the protection and preservation of peace, both within the country and with our neighbors, which remains our highest national priority,” said Hun Sen, the former prime minister who retains an overarching role in Cambodian politics since transferring power to his son in 2023.

The embargo and suspension of military exercises were initiated due to human rights concerns, Cambodia’s dwindling democratic space and China’s growing military influence.

In lifting the arms embargo and restoring Angkor Sentinel, the U.S. Mission to ASEAN noted Cambodia had agreed to expand cooperation in combating transnational crime.

This included narcotics trafficking and online scam centers, the mission said, citing “criminal enterprises that steal over $10 billion annually from vulnerable Americans.”

U.S. relations with Cambodia struck their lowest point in decades in the late 2010s as China showered Cambodia with Belt and Road projects including reconstruction of the Ream Naval Base on the south coast, in the contested South China Sea.

Ream reopened in April with a deepwater pier and dry dock facilities. It has often been described as China’s second foreign naval base, after Djibouti.

However, Chinese investment has since dried up and Cambodia has become increasingly isolated by an overwhelming presence of international criminal syndicates running human trafficking and scam compound rackets and its undeclared border war with Thailand.

Last month the U.S. Treasury Department seized more than $14 billion in cryptocurrency – the largest such seizure in history – from Cambodia’s Prince Bank while the U.S. Justice Department indicted Chen Zhi, the bank’s Chinese founder, for fraud and running scam compounds.

That, amid a crumbling economy, has forced a rethink in Phnom Penh. Cambodia has repeatedly denied claims of exclusive Chinese use of the Ream Naval base, and says it will offer the base’s services to all friendly nations and their navies.

The USS Savannah visited the nearby Sihanoukville port last December, the first visit by the U.S. Navy to Cambodia in eight years and since reopening, warships from Japan, Australia, Vietnam, Russia and China have docked at Ream.