"If the central government doesn't stay together, I'll have to find a way to protect my people."

That's just one of the many negative outlooks about the future of Afghanistan offered by Afghan civilians, police commanders, and US troops alike in the new book "Swimming with Warlords: A Dozen-Year Journey Across the Afghan War" by award-winning journalist Kevin Sites.

The pessimistic quote comes from a police commander named Imam Muhammad whom Sites interviewed, as he travels back to Afghanistan for his fifth and final journey to retrace his steps when he first entered at the beginning of the US-led war against the Taliban in 2001.

As Sites notes in his book, the commander's reference to "my people" is a bad sign, signifying a reliance on tribalism rather than a national identity — as Afghans — that continues to plague the war torn nation.

To be fair, the country has accomplished much in the years since the US invasion. Construction of schools, bridges, and dams have provided some semblance of infrastructure, and a growing art and skateboarding scene has emerged in Kabul — a development that would be unheard of under Taliban rule. Meanwhile, women's rights have considerably improved, and the average Afghan has seen health care improvements that have dramatically increased life expectancy.

But high levels of distrust toward the government among Afghans should yield no illusions as to the likely outcome when US troops leave.

"Corruption, all kinds of corruption," former Northern Alliance Gen. Moammar Hassan told Sites. "The justice system in Afghanistan doesn't work. The people are frustrated. And this is why in the western and southern provinces they go to the Taliban for justice and the application of Sharia law."

While offering a sober look at the state of Afghanistan, the book yields interesting perspectives from not only the many subjects interviewed but also the world of Sites himself, a journalist who has been in-and-out of conflict zones for more than 28 years. As he tries to follow along the path that took him to Afghanistan more than a decade before, he brings the reader back to entries in his 2001 journal, which offers perspective, wonderful reporting — and at times — sheer terror.

There is much to bolster the pessimistic argument toward Afghanistan's future these days. A new US government report shows record levels of opium production in the region, which is now a $3 billion industry with much of the profit going to the Taliban. And then there is the 2013 Vice documentary "This Is What Winning Looks Like," which showed that despite the best efforts of US forces, rampant corruption, military and police incompetence, and illiteracy still continue.

It's not just Afghans who are worried about the Taliban possibly returning to power. Sites references a Jan. 2014 classified "National Intelligence Estimate" put together by all 16 US intelligence agencies, which predicts chaos will engulf the country if foreign military and financial aid dries up, with the Taliban likely seizing control by 2017.

A favorite Taliban saying is that "the Americans have watches. We have the time."— Eric Margolis   

Still, there is an air of uncertainty that remains over Afghanistan — and Sites does not try to predict what will happen beyond 2014. It's worth remembering that before Afghanistan was ravaged by war, the country had paved roads, plenty of cars, schools, a modern, professional military, and a shared national identity.

Could it happen once more? As Sites argues, there is some room for optimism:

"So is all lost? My journeys tell me no. Hope both political and economic remains. Youth movements are forming, pushing back against both the government's corruption and the Taliban's extremism. Experts also say that Afghanistan could one day sustain itself with properly managed mineral and other natural resources. China, India, and other nations are already investing."

Whether Afghanistan blooms into the democracy hoped for by the US or turns to a Taliban dictatorship, Sites' book is a clear reminder of the inherent dangers of America's fiasco of "nation-building" in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the U.S.-backed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki destroyed the promise of democracy by pushing Sunnis out of the political process, paving the way for the rise of the Islamic State. With the final withdrawal of NATO forces approaching quickly, the next US president will want to avoid a similar outcome in Afghanistan.

"One thing I do know is that while hope is mightily tested, often beaten, battered, and sometimes stolen, it never really dies in the hearts of most Afghans," Sites writes in his afterword.

Sadly, much of Sites' book on the current state of Afghanistan yields little optimism toward the country's future. But only time will tell whether he's right about the survival of Afghan hope.

You can check out Sites' book "Swimming With Warlords" at Amazon >

Join the conversation about this story »

One would think a man with four stars on his collar leading U.S. forces in Afghanistan just one year ago would have no problem working with military leadership in the fight against militants of the so-called Islamic State at present.

But for retired Marine Gen. John Allen, who was appointed by President Obama in September as special envoy to lead the global coalition to counter the militant group, that calculus has been wrong.

An article posted at Foreign Policy on Thursday by Mark Perry lists a surprising number of detractors to Allen's appointment, including many in and out of uniform. The most obvious rift comes from Gen. Lloyd Austin, the man in charge of Central Command, tasked with carrying out the military plan to "degrade and destroy" ISIL, the administration's preferred acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

"Why the hell do we need a special envoy — isn't that what [Secretary of State] John Kerry's for?" a senior officer close to Austin told Perry, of the potential for confusion since Gen. Allen reports directly to President Obama.

Allen, 60, was given an incredibly difficult task upon his appointment. With the Islamic State consuming much of Iraq and Syria and boasting roughly 31,000 fighters, his role as special envoy is to "help build and sustain the coalition," and coordinate their efforts, according to the State Department.

But Allen — now inside the State Department and no longer wearing military rank — commands a role not very far outside the scope of duties of Gen. Austin at Centcom, who is charged with overseeing relationships, offering military support, and carrying out operations when necessary in 20 Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq and Syria.

Indeed, Gen. James Mattis — the commander before Austin at Centcom — demonstrated a perfect example of the military's ability to build coalitions without outside support, in retelling how he got 29 nations together to counter Iran's attempt to mine the Strait of Hormuz.

"The military overseas can do more than simply reinforce foreign policy," Mattis said earlier this year. "We can also buy time for the diplomats to do their magic."

It became apparent after only a few days of Allen's appointment that a turf war had emerged.

Via Foreign Policy:

When Allen requested that the Pentagon provide him with air transport to the region just days before his scheduled arrival in Iraq on Oct. 2, he was turned down by Austin's staff, who told him to check with the State Department. It was a slight "that left Allen steaming," a former high-level civilian Pentagon official confirmed.

Even Gen. Anthony Zinni — himself a former Centcom commander who later served as special envoy to Israel for peace talks in 2002 — was critical of Allen's appointment (via The Tampa Tribune):

“John Allen is a great guy, but does it take a retired general to coordinate a coalition? What is Centcom, chopped liver? Did Norman Schwarzkopf get some retired general? Who is really leading here, that is my question.”

And there are many more gripes noted by military officers who spoke on condition of anonymity to Foreign Policy. One derides Allen as "a boy scout." Another, noting his new role as a quasi-diplomat though he's never been one, said "I don't know how that's going to work."

For many of the military's top leaders it seems, having a retired general like Allen outside of the military chain-of-command reporting to Obama is a sign of White House "micromanagement." It also offers the possibility of conflicting messages between State and the Pentagon in the fight against ISIL.

“We are getting a lot of micromanagement from the White House. Basic decisions that should take hours are taking days sometimes,” one senior defense official told The Daily Beast.

But perhaps the most devastating critique comes from one of the tribal leaders that US forces need to support in pushing back the Islamic State. As militants battled for control of the home town of Jalal al-Gaood in Iraq's Anbar province, the man desperately tried to reach Allen to ask for assistance, but it was too late.

“Gen. Allen said, ‘I will put you in touch with someone in Centcom.’ But it never happened,” Gaood told The Washington Post's David Ignatius. “Every time the Iraqis meet with Americans, they just take notes.”

SEE ALSO: The US Confirms That It Is Not Coordinating With The Free Syrian Army

Join the conversation about this story »

Every region of the US has its own unique phrases, but they have nothing on the complex lexicon shared by people in the military.

Our service members already set themselves apart by speaking in acronyms like, "I was on the FOB when the IDF hit, so I radioed the TOC." Aside from their acronyms, members of the military also have their own special phrases that caught our attention.

"15 minutes prior to 15 minutes prior"

Military people learn to show up to everything (especially an official formation) at least 15 minutes early.

The phrase "15 minutes prior to 15 minutes prior" comes from the expectation that you arrive 15 minutes earlier than the person in the next rank. The captain wants everyone to meet at 0600, so the master sergeant wants folks to arrive at 0545, and when it finally hits the corporal, people are told to show up at midnight.

"A good piece of gear" (in reference to people)

Only in the service is it acceptable to refer to one of your coworkers or (more frequently) a person working for you as "a good piece of gear."

"Back on the block"

This refers to the time before service, when a servicemember was a "nasty" civilian. (Nasty in the military generally means unkempt.)

Often used in reference to meeting old friends while on leave, as in a military member is "back on the block," or acting like a civilian.

"Birth Control Glasses"

Military-issued eyeglasses known for their lack of aesthetic appeal. "Birth control glasses" are considered ugly enough to function as contraceptives. 

"Blues buddies"

Blues are the name for the dress uniform for the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and occasionally the Navy dress and Winter Blue uniforms. Two personnel who frequently leave base together while dressed in their blues as known as "blues buddies." 

"Blue falcon"

Slang for "Buddy F-----."

A Blue Falcon is someone who blatantly throws another Marine/soldier/sailor/airman under the bus.

"Breaking it down Barney-style"

Refers to the kid show "Barney and Friends." When something is broken down "Barney-style," it's being explained as if to a child.

"Chair Force"

An Air Force-specific term for personnel who never fly planes, but instead spend their time "flying a desk." Those in the "Chair Force" do office work. 

"Check six" 

An Air Force term for "watch out behind you" based on looking for enemy aircraft or missiles to the rear at the 6 0-clock position. "Check six" is also used in bars or other crowded areas to discretely tell a friend to check out someone behind them.

"Civvies" 

Any off-duty military clothes a normal civilian would wear on the street. 

"Days and a wake-up"

A "wake-up" refers to the last day you will be some place (generally while deployed). So, if a servicemember is getting ready for bed on a Sunday, and flying out on a Friday, he'll say "four days and a wake-up."

"Double digit midget"

"Double digit midgets" are service members with fewer than 100, but more than nine, days until their enlistment ends. A "double digit midget" could also refer to someone who is close to rotating out of a combat area.

A "drug deal"

When personnel or materiel are obtained through unofficial channels.

"Embrace the suck"

Military service isn't all fun. In fact, it mostly sucks.

For every five seconds of hanging out of a helicopter, there are countless eternities of safety briefs and mundane tasks (picking up cigarette butts, buffing floors, toilets, etc.). And then there is the unpleasantness of the ever-present rank structure.

Troops are encouraged to embrace this sad reality.

"Field strip"

Literally refers to taking apart weapons to the extent authorized for routine cleaning, lubrication, and minor repairs while in "the field."

Field stripping can also be used informally to describe taking apart anything.

If a Humvee becomes stuck or broken outside of base, troops will field strip it of anything classified or of value before leaving it behind.

If you park your car in a bad part of town, it may be on cinder blocks by the next morning, completely field stripped.

"Fobbit" 

A "Fobbit" is a slightly derogatory term for a soldier who never patrols outside of the relative safety of a forward operating base (FOB). The term is a combination of the words FOB and Hobbit. 

"Full battle-rattle"

This phrase refers to the gear servicemen and women must carry outside the wire. Generally: flak jacket with protective plates, Kevlar, 180 rounds of ammunition, water, rations, rifle.

It's called "battle rattle" because — unless we're talking about Navy SEALs — walking with all this stuff usually makes noise.

"Gear adrift, is a gift"

It's your own fault if you left something unattended and it went missing.

Conversely, someone who takes unattended gear has not stolen it; they've "tactically acquired" it. Needless to say, if they get caught, it's still larceny under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Tactical acquisition is taught in boot camp, where recruits from one platoon will prey on another possibly less-aware platoon in order to get supplies and bragging rights.

"Good initiative, bad judgement"

This phrase applies when somebody steps up to solve a problem but doesn't use the best solution.

Generally, this action shows "good initiative" because the problem might have been above the pay grade of person trying to solve it.

"Grunt by association"

A compliment: Someone who has worked on a daily basis with the infantry but isn't officially a grunt. Often said of artillerymen or drivers.

"High speed, low drag"

Literally a reference to aerodynamics, but often used figuratively to describe pairs of sunglasses, cars, or just about any piece of "gear."

"Lance corporal underground"

Another Marine Corps-specific phrase. Refers to the somewhat ill-informed, ubiquitous network of junior Marines. Word seems to spread around this network like viral content and largely reflects junior personnel's real feelings about a subject, course of action, or senior leader.

"Make a hole" 

"Make a hole" is the preferred method to tell a group of people to get out of your way. 

"Mandatory Fun" or "Mandofun"

Mandatory office dinner parties or get-togethers.

"No impact, no idea"

This phrase is used if a shooter on the range is so far off target that spotters don't see an impact. Used loosely to mean the speaker doesn't understand an idea, or that someone is totally clueless.

Similar to "high and off to the right," which is the military equivalent of "out of left field"— a personality type gone crazy, or an idea that no one saw coming.

"Nut to Butt"

Very literally, put your nuts on the butt in front of you — said specifically when space is tight or when a situation dictates close proximity of many bodies.

"Police call"

A police call is when an entire unit lines up and walks across a certain area looking for trash.

"Policing," on the other hand, is when a unit internally checks the behavior of its members, or when people are ordered to take care of their own outward deficiencies (i.e. "Police that mustache!")

"Pop smoke"

Refers directly to when troops use smoke to signal an incoming helicopter.

In vernacular, it means to "leave in a hurry."

"PowerPoint Ranger"

Like a member of the Chair Force, a "PowerPoint ranger" is a service member tasked primarily with creating PowerPoints for briefings. "PowerPoint rangers" can also be notorious for creating overly complicated briefs that feature too many animations or sound effects. 

"Pucker factor"

Refers to the anus and a frightening situation.

"Rainbow PT gear"

Rainbow means the unit wears whatever sporty gear they want to wear to do "physical training."

"Secret squirrel"

Intelligence personnel, secret communications, classified ops, or someone with higher classification.

"Semper I, (F--- the other guy)"

Marine Corps-specific terminology. Adapted from the phrase Semper Fidelis, the service's motto, which means Always Faithful.

"Semper I" is generally evoked when a Marine is perceived to have taken a course of action that adversely affects a fellow Marine while benefiting the original Marine.

"S--- Hot"

Something that is really awesome, hardcore, or tactically skilled. For example, you can be "s--- hot" at your job. An operation that was carried out well would also be "s--- hot."

"Smoking and joking"

Being unproductive, horsing around, or literally smoking and joking.

"Sniper check"

Giving a salute to an officer in the field. Salutes given to an officer are normally prohibited in the field since they would identify an officer to an enemy, making the officer the possible target of a sniper. 

"Soup sandwich" or a "S--- sandwich"

A person or situation that is incredibly screwed up. If it's a situation, often "everyone has to take a bite" of said soup sandwich.

"Standby to standby" and "hurry up and wait"

Believe it or not, the military is government, and government isn't always efficient.

"Standby" is a "preparatory command." Usually the order to standby alerts a unit that it will receive some kind of marching orders — "standby to launch."

Unofficially, it's used to tell junior members to be ready and wait. Often, troops find themselves waiting for long periods of time due to logistics or command indecisiveness.

Said sarcastically, "standby to standby" means that a unit is waiting to wait some more.

"Hurry up and wait," also said sarcastically, pokes fun at the military's propensity to perform tasks quickly, and then sit idly for long periods of time.

"Squared away" (or "locked on" or "a hard charger")

When service people say someone is squared away, it's generally a compliment that indicates exemplary, above-average service.

On the flip side, when someone is "unsat," they have performed some action or are themselves well below the required standards.

"Voluntarily Told, Voluntold"

There are two different kinds of voluntold:

A. The gunny walks into the office and says, "Man, wouldn't the floor look nice if somebody buffed it?" Which means,"Buff the floor."

B. "I need two volunteers to stand out in front of Best Buy this Saturday collecting Toys for Tots."

" ... "

"Jones, Smith, you're collecting Toys for Tots this weekend."

"Zero Dark Thirty"

Until the movie came around people largely didn't know what "Zero Dark Thirty" meant. Specifically, it refers to the 24-hour time 0030, or 12:30 a.m.

At times it's used loosely to mean "really early."

"Zero Stupid Thirty" is used to deride formations deemed unnecessarily early.

IT'S REALLY HARD NOT TO LAUGH: At these 29 images of Marine Drill Instructors screaming in people's faces

DON'T MISS: 12 sayings only people from California will understand

Join the conversation about this story »

The Obama administration is coming under increasing criticism for what critics say is a "half-hearted,""Goldilocks" approach toward defeating the extremist group ISIS in Syria.

The US military has begun the process of vetting moderate factions of rebels in Syria.

But President Barack Obama has been reluctant to commit the US military to help those nationalist Syrian forces in their fight against the regime of Syrian President Bashar-al Assad, as he is wary of getting US forces too involved in Syria's civil war. 

Experts and even some in the administration have started to hint at serious flaws in Obama's strategy to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS, also known as ISIL or the Islamic State. For instance, the administration plans to only train the rebels to defend territory — not go on the offensive — something that could provide an unintentional boost to Assad regime forces.

Gen. John Allen, the president's special envoy to the coalition fighting ISIS, also said this weekend that the US doesn't believe the rebels it trains will go on to fight forces backing Assad. Instead, he said the administration hopes to build up the moderate rebels enough that they will "become the credible force that the Assad government ultimately has to acknowledge and recognize."

The policy has befuddled Middle East analysts and experts, many of whom have blamed Assad for intentionally fueling ISIS' rise to create a jihadist vacuum. 

"The only course of action that makes sense to me is to try to build a Syrian force capable of defeating any combination of enemies in the course of stabilizing Syria," Fred Hof, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and a former special advisor for transition in Syria at the U.S. Department of State, told Business Insider. 

"If the creation and deploying of this force persuades or compels the Assad regime to engage in genuine political negotiations, fine. A Goldilocks approach of trying to recruit and build a force just good enough to beat ISIL but not quite good enough to the beat the regime simply won't work."

The key limitation of the coalition's strategy has long been a general unwillingness to become more involved in Syria's still-deepening, three-plus-year long civil war. 

The administration's policy has frustrated the forces with which it is planning to partner in Syria. Because as the US has stepped up its campaign to rescue the beleaguered town of Kobani from the hands of ISIS, Assad has continued his barrel-bombing campaign in other, rebel-held areas of Syria.

Assad has used the breathing room allotted by the focus on ISIS to intensify his bombing campaign against Free Syrian Army-held territory, including a campaign of "200 air force strikes"' in 36 hours in recent days. One of the unknowns of the strategy could be potentially disastrous — by the time Syrian rebels are vetted and trained by late 2015 at the earliest, they may not have much territory to defend.


"Designing such a force would be problematical and frankly I do not know of any Syrian nationalist opponents of the regime and ISIL who would be attracted to the lop-sided proposition as described," Hof told Business Insider. "Syrians have, after all, suffered much more from Assad than they have from ISIL to date. As we try to square the circle of a purely American policy debate we'll have to keep in mind that Syrians will have a vote." 

The Washington Post editorial board criticized Obama's "half-hearted" strategy against ISIS, citing "major weaknesses" including a "de facto neutral stance" that has allowed Assad to step up his campaign against the FSA forces on whom the US is counting to be the ground force that helps defeat ISIS.

The editorial board also pointed to the consequences of inaction with allies — Turkey, an important partner because of its border, has been reluctant to engage militarily without a commitment from the US to oust Assad. Iraq's new government recently appointed a Shiite Iranian-affiliated interior minister. And some Sunni tribes — whose support is key against the Sunni militants of ISIS — are striking deals with the extremist group rather than join the US coalition.

"The United States will have to broaden its aims and increase its military commitment if the terrorists are to be defeated," the editorial board wrote. "At the least, Syrian rebel forces must be protected from attacks by the Assad regime and both Syrian and Iraqi units provided with U.S. advisers and air controllers. The longer Mr. Obama delays such steps, the greater the risk to vital U.S. interests."

But given domestic political constraints of sending US troops to fight in Iraq and Syria and varying allied support, other analysts believe the Obama administration's policy — Goldilocks as it may be — might be the best option.

"Support for US boots on the ground is limited and would quickly grow into opposition over time and given casualties," Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, recently told Business Insider. "And if you’re not planning on an actual substantial ground force, you’re left with a strategy that’s part pushback (where you have workable ground forces — for now, the Kurds in Iraq), part containment (west Iraq and Syria). 

"So if you’re asking is [the] present Obama strategy going to defeat ISIS — the answer is no. If you’re asking is there realistically a better, more workable strategy out there — the answer is also no." 

Join the conversation about this story »

The balance of power in the Middle East is in disarray: A three-year civil war has torn apart Syria and opened up a vacuum for the rise of the Islamic State group; Sunni powers led by Saudi Arabia continue to face off against Shi'ite powers led by Iran; other countries are reeling from uprisings in the Arab Spring; and foreign powers are all taking sides.

Faced with this tense paradigm, every country in the region is building up its own military.

Jump to the rankings »

Indeed, four of the five fastest-growing defense markets in 2013 were in the Middle East, led by Oman — up 115% in a year — and Saudi Arabia — up 300% in a decade — according to IHS Jane's.

We have analyzed each country to rank the most powerful militaries in the Middle East. This ranking does not count foreign powers like the US or their support, though we have noted important alliances. After looking over state militaries, we also profiled (but did not rank) some of the increasingly powerful non-state military groups.

The ranking is based on a holistic assessment of the militaries' operational capabilities and hardware, based on our research and on interviews with Patrick Megahan, an expert from the Foundation of Defense of Democracies' Military Edge project, and Chris Harmer, senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.

Some countries with large yet incapable militaries rank low on the list; some smaller and technologically advanced militaries from stable states rank fairly high.

Others present analytical challenges that are difficult to get around in a ranking format. For instance, Egypt has an enormous military with little in the way of a recent battlefield record. Syria's military is diminished by three years of war, but it has been able to fulfill the Assad regime's narrow battlefield objectives and field an operational air force.

No ranking will be absolutely exact. But here's our idea of where things stand in one of the world's least-predictable regions.

No. 15 Yemen

$1.4 billion defense budget
66,700 active frontline personnel
1,260 tanks
181 aircraft

Yemen's military has struggled in the face of an onslaught from the Houthi rebel movement, which captured the Ministry of Defense's headquarters in the capital city of Sa'ana during a September 2014 offensive. Yemen has all sorts of other problems on its hands as well, like the presence of a major Al Qaeda franchise and one of the highest rates of gun ownership on earth. 

Like a few other countries in this ranking, Yemen is ruled by a government that doesn't really control its own territory, a fact that negates much of the advantage the country might derive from its fairly large conventional military. It's a collapsed state with an outdated arsenal.

The remains of Yemen's hobbled government have also joined up with the Houthi rebels to fight Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. This is actually another sign of the state's weakness. It took a motivated and organized non-state sectarian militant group to confront Yemen's Al Qaeda franchise, something the uniform military hasn't been able or willing to do.

Key allies: Yemen has had a longstanding, if sometimes uneasy, security partnership with the US and allows the US to use armed drones to go after Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula on its territory.

No. 14 Lebanon

$1.7 billion defense budget
131,100 active frontline personnel
318 tanks
57 aircraft

The Lebanese Armed Forces is an all-volunteer force, having ended compulsory military service as of February 2007. Historically, the Lebanese military was kept small due to internal disagreements among the various religious groups within the country. During Lebanon's 15-year civil war, a national military effectively ceased functioning as the country was divided between Israeli, Syrian, UN, and militia zones of control. 

Since the Lebanese civil war, the Lebanese military has focused mainly on anti-terrorist and peacekeeping activities within the country. The military has been unable and unwilling to disarm the militant group Hezbollah, which is an even more capable fighting force than the Lebanese army. 

In March the International Support Group for Lebanon pledged $17.8 million to help the country modernize its military, while Saudi Arabia gave a $3 billion grant.

Currently, Lebanon's Special Forces is unevenly equipped, and the country lacks any fixed-wing aircraft. 

It is an incoherent force in a divided country, without much heavy equipment and with only notional control. "They're really far behind," Megahan, a research associate for military affairs at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an analyst for its Military Edge project, told Business Insider.

Key allies: Saudi Arabia and the US, which also provides military aid.

To mark the 70th anniversary of its liberation from fascism, Rome has reopened one of the bunkers built for Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. 

A series of bunkers were built under the Italian capital during World War II to provide shelter for bureaucrats and party leaders.

Bunker di Roma, a local website, has cataloged up to 12 different bunkers beneath the city and campaigned for their refurbishment so that tourists can visit them. 

Many of the bunkers, including Mussolini's personal air raid shelter, have not been entered since the end of the war, according to Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. 

Mussolini was leader of the Italian fascist movement from 1923 to 1943. 

The bunker is located below Villa Torlonia, the Roman residence of Mussolini since 1922. It's just a short walk from the Colosseum.

The shelter could house up to 15 people in case of intense bombardment. It was never used, as Mussolini was ousted by his own private council on Sept. 8, 1943.

The bunker was outfitted with the most cutting-edge technologies of the time. It was designed to protect against a gas attack, as the sign in this picture says.

The most generous interpretation of a "senior US official's" now-infamous smear of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is that the speaker was caught in a fit of pique.

After all, the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg lists many of the less-than-flattering things that high-ranking Obama staffers have called Netanyahu over the years: "recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse." None are complimentary, but none have the same bluntly insulting power of "chickens---."

If the quote itself is a gaffe, it's nevertheless consistent with what the US administration must recognize as a looming foreign policy challenge, perhaps one of the greatest of Obama's presidency.

The administration is trying to finalize a nuclear deal with Iran that it knows the Israeli government is not going to like. The quotes in Goldberg's article could be a part of an effort to portray the Israelis as recalcitrant, unappreciative, or needlessly belligerent, in full knowledge of the rupture in relations — and political controversy inside the United States — that will come with the Iran deal Obama's team currently envisions.

Interestingly, Goldberg's article came just a few days after one of the administration's top Iran negotiators laid out the goals and parameters of this eventual deal. On October 23, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman addressed a forum on the Iran nuclear negotiations at the Center for International and Strategic Studies in Washington. The administration must have known that the Israelis could not have liked what they heard.

Sherman conceded that the negotiating process has been difficult, and promised that Tehran would never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon. But she explained that the current negotiations have a more technical and more limited objective than that: "Our goal now is to develop a durable and comprehensive arrangement that will effectively block all of Iran’s potential paths to fissile material for a nuclear weapon," she said. "Such an arrangement would bar Iran from producing fuel for a weapon with either uranium or plutonium."

So even under a final agreement, Iran would retain enrichment capabilities — note the "for a nuclear weapon" modifier. It might even be able to continue research on advanced centrifuges or keep the infrastructure needed to enrich uranium to weapons-grade. It might even be allowed to enrich to weapons-grade, so long as its stockpiled remain below the 1000 or so kilograms of uranium needed for a warhead. 

This vision of success is exactly what Netanyahu means when he warns of a deal that leaves Iran as a "threshold nuclear power," as he did during his speech before the UN General Assembly in September.

But this isn't the only potential source of Israeli anxiety from Sherman's CSIS address. She said the US and the Iranians "have made impressive progress on issues that originally seemed intractable," and suggested that remaining points of contention were of the trivial and even slightly generic variety, at least in light of the overall trend towards an agreement: "Like any complicated and technically complex diplomatic initiative, this is a puzzle with many interlocking pieces," said Sherman.

And perhaps most alarmingly from an Israeli perspective, Sherman described this drift towards closer US-Iranian relations as an unvarnished good for the Middle East and the planet at large

"The world is clearly better off now than it would have been if the leaders on both sides had ignored this opening," she said of the negotiating process. "With all that is going on in the Middle East today, an Iranian nuclear program that was not frozen but instead rushing full speed ahead toward larger stockpiles, more uranium enrichment capacity, the production of weapons-grade plutonium, and less transparency would hardly have been a stabilizing factor."

The Israelis do not see it that way. They view the current Iran negotiating process, and the rebalancing of regional power that it represents, as one aspect of a larger and deeply worrying whole.

The Israelis do not want to see a deal that they think will empower Iran, which is a leading patron for Hamas and Hezbollah, two regional terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction. The Israelis are already juggling terrorism in the Sinai, the political and diplomatic aftermath of this summer's Gaza flare-up, the civil war in Syria, the creation of a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas, ominous incidents on the border with Lebanon, and ongoing unrest in Jerusalem.

The re-orientation of American policy towards Tehran is be a troubling added variable, highlighted by statements made by officials to the Wall Street Journal.

Officials "said the intensive negotiations the U.S. has pursued with Iran since last year on the nuclear issue could help stabilize the Mideast and have improved understanding," WSJ reports.

Furthermore, Sherman's speech shows that US officials believe they're close to a deal that the Israelis will find deeply unpalatable.

The whisper campaign in Goldberg's article could be part of an effort to soften US public opinion for an upcoming and far more public crisis in relations between the two allies. Or it could be a reflection of behind-the-scenes dynamics — evidence that the Obama administration's attempts to reassure the Israelis in private haven't bore fruit.

It could also be the residue of a growing spat between the US and Israel over the parameters of a final deal — the full ugliness of which only became public yesterday.

Speculation aside, there was one very clear message in Goldberg's article that Netanyahu probably heard loud and clear.

"It’s too late for him to do anything," one of Goldberg's anonymous official said of the possibility of Netanyahu launching an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. "Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

Inevitably, Israel is going to have to live with whatever deal Washington signs with Tehran — regardless of what it looks like. And Obama will have to deal with the political fallout of Israeli's disappointments and even anger over a final deal — regardless of what form that damage control will have to take.

SEE ALSO: Here's how the US reacted to China's first nuclear test 50 years ago this month

Join the conversation about this story »

Good morning! Here's what you need to know for Monday.

1. Pro-Russian rebels in the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk held elections on Sunday, the results of which have been declared a breach of constitutional law by the United Nations but that will be recognized by Russia.

2. German chancellor Angela Merkel has reportedly warned British prime minister David Cameron that she would support a British exit from the European Union if Cameron attempted to restrict immigration within Europe. 

3. Investigators of Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo crash are looking into the rocket's fuel propulsion system, which used nitrous oxide rather than a traditional carbon-based fuel.

4. The latest report on climate change from the United Nations warns that failure to reduce emissions could change the climate so dramatically it "might become dangerous for people to work or play outside during the hottest times of the year," The New York Times writes. 

5. Saudi Arabia's National Commercial Bank has just ended what one analyst called "the mother of all IPOs."

6. Burkina Faso's army pledged to install a unity government on Sunday, while taking over national television headquarters in the capital Ouagadougou.

7. China's services sector hit a nine-month low in October. 

8. A British banker has been charged with the murder of two women in Hong Kong. 

9. Despite being thousands of miles from the outbreak, North Korea has imposed some of the world's toughest measures against the Ebola virus.

10. Wilson Kipsang, 32, from Kenya won first place in the New York City Marathon on Sunday with a time of 2 hours, 10 minutes, 59 seconds.

And finally ...

If you can explain what happens when smoke comes out of a cigarette, you're eligible for a $1 million prize. 

SEE ALSO: The 10 Most Important Things In The World Archives

Join the conversation about this story »

Last year, DailyMotion partnership manager Dan Milano posted this amazing GIF showing the construction of One World Trade Center, formerly known as the Freedom Tower, from Ground Zero to 1,776 feet.

On Monday, the state-of-the-art building is welcoming its first tenant, the publisher Condé Nast.

Check out all 40,000 tons of structural steel being put together:

NOW: Read The Incredible Story Of The Wall Street CEO Who Survived And Rebuilt His Firm After 9/11

Join the conversation about this story »

Vice President Joe Biden appeared to accidentally deviate from the White House's official line on Russia's annexation of territory in Ukraine by actually calling it an invasion during a Monday morning interview on CNN.

Speaking on CNN, Biden listed overseas crises like the Ebola virus that he claimed the US government had dealt with successfully. Biden said this proved the US public "should not be as anxious as they are" about the world right now.

"When the Russians invaded — crossed the border — into Ukraine. It was, 'My god. It's over,'" Biden said, not even pausing a full second before switching the word "invaded" to "crossed the border."

"We've put it under control," Biden assured.

President Barack Obama's administration initially awkwardly and repeatedly refused to use the word "invasion"— preferring to instead to deploy terms like "incursion" to describe Russian troops crossing the Ukrainian border last summer in support of Moscow-backed separatists.

According to some foreign policy experts, the terminology debate can be important because certain loaded words could demand direct US action when the White House would prefer a more cautious approach.

"Some words have both legal and emotional effects. And in the case of invasion, it's emotional and political," Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told CBC News last August. "I think they don't want to use the word invasion because it makes harder the next question: And what are you going to do about it?"

View Biden's comments on CNN below.

Join the conversation about this story »

French security chiefs are investigating a spate of mysterious and illegal flights by tiny, unmanned drones over French nuclear power stations.

A government official told The Associated Press that authorities have counted about 15 drone flights over a half-dozen nuclear sites since October 1. Authorities insist that France's nuclear facilities are designed to handle seismic and security risks, including those possibly posed by drones.

"Drone overflights are currently being carried out in a repeated and simultaneous manner over certain nuclear sites in our country," the prime minister's general secretariat for defense and national security, known as SGDSN, said in a statement sent Monday to the AP.

"The objective apparently sought by this type of organized provocation is to disrupt the chain of surveillance and protection at these sites," it said.

Environment Minister Segolene Royal told French media Sunday that investigators have no leads about who was behind the flights. The SGDSN said authorities open legal cases for every suspected violation and those convicted could face fines of up to 75,000 euros ($94,000) and a year in prison.

Officials are increasingly keeping quiet about the government's response. Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve told French radio last week that authorities had ways to "neutralize" drones, but did not elaborate. On Monday, he told RTL radio that "the best way to be effective in this area is not to say what we're doing."

In recent years, Greenpeace France has led sporadic, peaceful incursions into French nuclear facilities to expose security vulnerabilities, but the environmental group has denied any connection to the drone flights.

France gets more than two-thirds of electricity from nuclear power, the highest proportion in the world.

Copyright (2014) Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

SEE ALSO: Canada has launched its first airstrikes against Al Qaeda

Join the conversation about this story »

Tensions between Russia and the West have been steadily growing over the past few months, as there has been a sharp uptick in Russian bombers and fighters flying missions over Europe. This increase in activity has  taken place against the backdrop of a frozen conflict in Ukraine, which has already pitted Russia and the West against each other. 

This rise in tensions, summarized succinctly in a recent brazenly anti-Western Putin speech, has led to Russian aerial incursions being viewed with increased hesitance. 

"What is significant is that across history, most of these incursions have been very small groups of airplanes, sometimes singletons or at most two aircraft,"the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, said at a Pentagon briefing.

"What you saw this past week was a larger, more complex formation of aircraft carrying out a little deeper, and I would say a little bit more provocative, flight path."

We have listed below some of the most notable instances of provocative Russian aircraft exercises over the US and US allied territory since March 2013. 

March 29, 2013 — Sweden

Russian military aircraft simulated a large scale bombing run over Stockholm, Sweden. Two Tu-22M3 Backfire heavy bombers, which can carry cruise missiles and nuclear weapons, and four Su-27 Flanker fighter jets flew within 30 to 40 kilometers of Swedish territorial waters before returning to Russia. 

February 24, 2014 — Estonia

On February 24, Estonia's independence day, US F-15Cs intercepted a Russian spy plane. The F-15Cs were in Estonia as part of the NATO rotational force that helps to police the Baltic states' airspace. 

May 2014 — California and Guam 

In a seeming return to Cold War tensions, Russia increased its aerial activity throughout the Pacific. US fighter jets intercepted Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers over Guam and over the Pacific west of the California coast. 

June 2014 — Alaska and California

In the beginning of June, four Russian Tu-95 strategic bombers triggered US air defense systems in Alaska and California. Two of the bombers returned to Russia after being intercepted over the Aleutian islands, while the other two continued to within 50 miles off of the north Californian coast. 

June 2014 — Denmark 

Russia carried out a simulated attack of the Danish island of Bornholm while the island hosted 90,000 guests in a political festival that drew attendees from ranging from politicians to journalists and activists. The Russian planes were equipped with live missiles, and was the most overtly offensive Russian simulated strike against Denmark since the Cold War. 

August 2014 — US 

During a ten day period from the end of July into the beginning of August, Russian strategic nuclear bombers carried out at least 16 incursions into US air defense zones in the northwest of the country. The Russian planes included Tu-95 heavy bombers and intelligence aircraft. 

September 2014 — US 

Two Russian strategic bombers carried out simulated cruise missile strikes against the US during a NATO summit in Wales. The Tu-95s flew to an optimum site for launching the missiles in Canada's north east. US fighters were not scrambled to respond to the threat, as the Russian aircraft stayed out of the North American Air Defense Identification Zone. 

October 2014 — Japan

From May 2014 to October 2014, Japan more than doubled the number of times it scrambled aircraft against Russian aircraft. The Japanese aircraft intercepted a mixture of Russian spy planes and bombers, and focused around a ring of contested islands to the north of Japan. 

October 21, 2014 — Estonia

A Russian spy plane violated Estonia's airspace. The Russian Ilyushin-20 flew for about a minute in Estonian airspace before being intercepted by fighters from Denmark, Portugal, and Sweden. 

October 28, 2014 — Baltic Sea

Seven Russian combat aircraft flew over international airspace in the Baltic Sea. German Typhoon fighters intercepted the Russians over the Gulf of Finland. The Russian aircraft did not change course, and were also intercepted by Danish, Swedish, and Finnish forces before they landed in the Russian province of Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea. 

October 29, 2014 — Baltic Sea, Black Sea, North Sea, and Atlantic Ocean

Portuguese fighter jets intercepted seven Russian jets over the Baltic Sea. Simultaneously, Turkish fighters were scrambled to intercept two Russian bombers and two fighters over the Black Sea. 

The English RAF also intercepted eight Russian aircraft over the North Sea. After the interception, the formation split, with the fighters and a tanker returning to Russia while two bombers continued towards the Atlantic. The bombers were later intercepted again by the Portuguese over the Atlantic. 

SEE ALSO: NATO intercepted 26 Russian aircraft in two days

Join the conversation about this story »

Warning: This article contains images and descriptions of extreme violence.

Human Rights Watch released a report last week detailing — with horrific precision — a single massacre carried out by the Islamic State militant group (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in which more than 600 people were thought to have been executed. Witnesses say an ISIS militant filmed the atrocity.

While Human Rights Watch says no footage of that massacre has been released, ISIS has bragged about previous atrocities, releasing nauseating videos of mass executions.

In explicit detail, one video released by the group, and seen by Business Insider, appears to shows the executions of at least 160 men and boys.

Militants posted images in June and said the victims were Iraqi soldiers, though most appear to be young men and boys in civilian clothing. ISIS said it killed 1,700 Iraqi prisoners of war, though human rights groups say the figure should be treated with some skepticism.

A subsequent investigation by Human Rights Watch, including interviews with witnesses and analysis of the footage, has revealed that between 560 and 770 people were killed in the massacres, which occurred in the Iraqi city of Tikrit.

The footage shows the victims crammed into trucks for transport and bound and blindfolded lying facedown. In severe distress, some of the men plead with their captors, while others appear despondent.

In one mass execution, at least 30 men are forced to march at gunpoint to a shallow pit in a desert landscape. They are then made to lie face down, with their hands behind their head.

A man with an automatic weapon held casually in one hand then walks down the row of prisoners, firing bullets into each person one-by-one.

The victims' bodies spasm with each shot; several are seen writhing after their injuries. The shooter, accompanied by a fellow militant holding an ISIS flag, then takes a second pass, firing more bullets into the prisoners.

In the image below, Human Rights Watch says it appears the mounds of dirt to the right are covering a mass grave of previously executed prisoners. A partially buried body appears to be visible in the lower right of the image.

In another execution depicted in the video, three men are forced to kneel with their backs to a gunman on a large slab of concrete. Scores of other bodies are visible in the background.

The kneeling men have their hands tied and their faces blindfolded. Each is shot in the head by a masked man with an automatic weapon.

In the final section of footage, at least 15 men are forced to march in single file with their heads down and their hands on one another’s waists. One man appears to argue with a gunman, who then fires a shot above his head, prompting the captive to fall back into line.

The men are brought down to a riverside. One by one, an ISIS militant brings each of the men to a concrete slab by the water’s edge, its surface slick with bright-red blood. A man with a handgun quickly fires a shot into each victim’s head. Those who don’t fall directly into the water are kicked in by the militants. To the side of the gunman stands another militant holding the ISIS flag.

Some of the ISIS militants wear camouflage, while others are dressed casually. Many are masked, though others appear easily identifiable. In the footage, which ISIS shot and edited, reverent music plays in the background.

Human Rights Watch has investigated the massacres by examining footage, taking witness accounts, and consulting satellite imagery. Based on the group's analysis, it believes the sequence is evidence that between 560 and 770 men were executed in at least two locations between June 11 and 14.

"The number of victims may well be much higher, but the difficulty of locating bodies and accessing the area has prevented a full investigation," Human Rights Watch said.

An example of HRW's granular method of analysis of the video can be seen below:

In the earlier June 10 massacre detailed by Human Rights Watch, 600 men were lined up, executed, and then burned in the middle of the desert. Nine survivors gave the organization raw accounts of the violence. 

“They set my right leg on fire. But I had to withstand the pain so they wouldn’t know that I was still breathing. When they saw that I didn’t move, they told each other that I was dead. Then they burned the person next to me,” one survivor said.

ISIS seized control of Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, on June 10. The organization's extreme brutality, demonstrated through atrocities like the massacres in the days after the city's capture, created an atmosphere of terror and panic that has allowed ISIS to retain control of much of western Iraq. 

The coalition air campaign against the group continues amid frequent reports of ISIS' disregard for human rights: HRW has also reported that ISIS is enslaving and forcibly converting members of Iraq's Yazidi religious minority, while targeting Shi'ite Muslim civilians and their places of worship.

SEE ALSO: This May Be The Most Horrific Single ISIS Massacre

SEE ALSO: 10 Ways ISIS Is Violating The Laws Of Islam

SEE ALSO: ISIS Is Actively Recruiting Female Fighters To Brutalize Other Women

Join the conversation about this story »

Becoming a military pilot is a formidable physical and psychological challenge. Those hoping to fly fighter jets must prove their ability to withstand a high level of G-forces, or the equivalent of the force of gravity multiplied.

That's why fighter pilots-in-training have to spend some time in a centrifuge to prove they can handle the pressure.

"Essentially, you are placed in a chamber that is on the end of a long arm that spins around the room — the faster it spins, the more G-forces you feel on your body," Jack Stewart, an active pilot with over 2,000 hours of experience in jet aircraft, wrote in an email to Business Insider. "Yes, it feels like weight is pushing down on every part of you."

If you've ever been on a roller coaster, you know what a quick spike in G-force feels like. But the sensation of intense pressure is greater and longer in duration for someone strapped into the cockpit of a fighter jet, a vehicle which can "pull" up to nine times the force of gravity.

YouTube is full of videos of what pilots call "g-monsters," or individuals adept at handling the incredible pressure created by the centrifuge, which is meant to simulate a fighter jet's G-force. The label is similar to being called a "stud" or "beast" in athletics, wrote Stewart.

To viewers, there's little to betray the fact that the trainee is undergoing inhuman amounts of gravitational pressure. A "g-monster's" only giveaway is a gradually more contorted facial expression, as in the video below:

After his first run in the machine, this student answers questions about various types of vision loss he may have felt after experiencing 6.8 Gs, which is enough force to push blood away from the brain. In the last minute of the video, he completes 30 seconds under a staggering 8 Gs of force.

Fighting the effects of a centrifuge is a full-body effort: everything from a pilot's flexing of their leg muscles to their breathing methods are leveraged to build resistance and maintain vision and consciousness.

That collection of techniques is known as the anti-G straining maneuver (AGSM).

A training guide from the Federal Aviation Administration describes AGSM as "a physical technique where the aviator pushes air out of the lungs against a closed glottis"— that's the audible hic sound the trainee in the video is instructed to make — "while simultaneously contracting the muscles in the calves, thighs, and shoulders." This prevents flood from flowing away from the brain, which minimizes the risk to a pilot.

Stewart told Business Insider that the pressure during centrifugal training can be worse than actually flying a jet.

"The worst part about it is that when the G’s relax, the arm of the centrifuge slows and causes the fluid in your inner ears to slide forward, giving you the sensation that you are falling forward," he said.

Fortunately, pilots typically only go through centrifugal training a single time before moving on to the real thing. Once they make it through, it's usually clear that the student has what it takes to fly some of the highest-performance aircraft on the planet.

SEE ALSO: Here's how to get a job at the CIA

Join the conversation about this story »

SOFREP, a well-regarded website dedicated to covering national security and the US special operations forces community, published a story on Monday naming a former member of Navy SEAL Team 6 as the person who will claim to have shot Al Qaeda founder Osama Bin Laden in a Fox News documentary later this month. 

The site released the name following a letter sent by two leaders of US Naval Special Warfare Command to their team members on Friday in which they criticized any SEAL who would violate the elite force's "ethos" and go public about a mission.

That letter, also published by SOFREP, came two days after the announcement of the Fox News documentary, which will be titled "The Man Who Killed Osama Bin Laden" and is set to air in two parts on Nov. 11 and 12. 

According to SOFREP editor and former Army Ranger Jack Murphy, the site spoke to "two independent sources" within the Navy Special Warfare Command "community" to verify that the person named in their story is the same one who will claim to be Bin Laden's killer on Fox News.

Business Insider is not naming the person identified by SOFREP as we have not confirmed his identity and he did not respond to our multiple requests for comment.

Murphy also said SOFREP confirmed that the person named on the site was the same man who participated in an interview published in the March 2013 issue of Esquire where he was identified as "the man who shot and killed Osama bin Laden" during a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan on May 2, 2011.

The person named by SOFREP has previously appeared at public events where he was described as being a member of the elite SEAL team that participated in the operation that left the world's most wanted terrorist leader dead. In his public comments and social-media pages, the person in question indicated he had left the Navy in 2012, the same date Esquire indicated that the SEAL, who has become known as "The Shooter," ended his military service. 

In his statement to Business Insider, Murphy noted this person's alleged participation in the Esquire article means that, along with author Matt Bissonette, he is one of "the only two members of DEVGRU's Red Squadron publicly speaking to date about their experiences" on the "sensitive" Bin Laden mission.

In 2012, Bissonette wrote a book about his participation in the raid. Earlier this summer, the Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into whether he leaked classified material. 

Fox News announced plans for "The Man Who Killed Osama Bin Laden" last Wednesday. According to the network's press release, the broadcast will feature "an exclusive interview with the Navy SEAL who says he fired the shots that killed" Bin Laden.

After Fox News revealed plans for the documentary, Navy Commander Amy Derrick-Frost, a Department of Defense spokesperson, released a statement to Business Insider in which she noted that the SEAL who shot Bin Laden would be subject to nondisclosure agreements that all military service members sign.

Derrick-Frost also suggested "The Shooter" should not participate in a TV interview.

"If in fact this individual was associated with the military unit that carried out the UBL raid, which is yet to be determined, he is still bound by his non-disclosure agreement to not discuss classified information, especially in a nationally televised interview," Derrick-Frost said.

Business Insider reached out to Fox News after SOFREP published its story naming the person who will allegedly appear in the network's documentary.

A Fox News spokesperson declined to confirm whether the site had identified the person who will appear on the network. The Fox News representative indicated the government has not attempted to block the documentary.

"FOX News has not been contacted by the Department of Defense or any other government agency expressing concern about 'The Man Who Killed Osama Bin Laden' special and we have every intention of airing it as planned on November 11th and 12th," the Fox News spokesperson said. "Furthermore, we will not confirm the identity of the NAVY Seal who is interviewed in the program prior to its airing."

The Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider about the SOFREP story. 

NOW WATCH: 9 Animated Maps That Will Change The Way You See The World

SEE ALSO: Why Green Berets Are The Smartest, Most Lethal Fighters In The World

Join the conversation about this story »

As China continues its rise to superpower stature, Beijing is trying to rapidly increase its firepower.

China's attempts to seriously upgrade its military — with next-generation fighter jets, ballistic missiles, and advanced naval vessels — is partly aimed at keeping pace with the US.

The two are in a veritable arms race in east Asia. The US engaged in a "pivot to Asia," focusing military and diplomatic attention on an increasingly important part of the world.

Meanwhile, China is trying to expand its territorial reach into the South China Sea, an effort that's already bringing Beijing into conflict with US allies like Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

And China is constantly building its military with a possible invasion of Taiwan in mind.

Already, China has become the world's second-largest military spender, right behind the US. Since 1995, China has increased its defense budget by 500% in real terms. 

Although China's military has a ways to go before it is qualitatively, or even quantitatively, a match for the US, the country's rise has been notable, and counts as one of the major geo-strategic developments of this decade. 

Chengdu J-20

The Chengdu J-20 is China's fifth-generation fighter, its response to the US F-35 and the Russian T-50. The J-20 is a stealth aircraft that is currently in its fourth round of prototypes. 

The J-20 bears striking resemblance to the F-35 and the F-22, likely due to data theft and Chinese imitation of the skeletons of both planes. China may have the design specifications needed to give the J-20 stealth capabilities that are on par with the F-35. 

Although the plane is estimated to have a striking range of 1,000 nautical miles, the aircraft itself is still reliant upon Russian engines and in a relatively early stage of its development.

Shenyang J-31

The Shenyang J-31 is the other fifth-generation aircraft that China is currently developing.

Unlike the J-20, which is heavily based on stolen American plans, the J-31 boasts an indigenous design. The plane is about the same size as the F-35, but has a smaller weapons bay — giving the J-31 improved fuel efficiency and speed. 

The J-31 is also designed to be deployable to China's planned fleet of aircraft carriers. It would join the F-35 as the only two carrier-based stealth fighters in the world. 

The J-31 is scheduled to make its public debut at China's largest commercial and defense airshow in Zhuhai in early November.

Shenyang J-15 Flying Shark

The Shenyang J-15 is a carrier-based fighter aircraft that debuted in 2009. In a 2014 report to Congress, the Pentagon noted that the Fying Shark was conducting full-stops and takeoffs from China's Liaoning aircraft carrier with full weapons payloads. 

When based on the ground, the J-15 should have a combat radius of about 1,200 kilometers. However, since the Liaoning does not provide a useful catapult launch, the aircraft will have a reduced combat radius while operating at sea, the Pentagon reported. 

The Chinese-produced J-15 is based on designs of the Russian Sukhoi Su-33. The plane is a Russian-type design fitted with Chinese radar, engines, and weapons. 

The Obama administration's plan for Iraq — train 20,000 Iraqi troops and incorporate Sunni tribes into a new national guard — is off to a rough start:

First, many details of the training program have yet to be worked out, and the new national guard won’t be ready for at least six months.

Second, the situation continues to deteriorate. Islamic State militants have consolidated control of about 80% of Iraq's crucial Anbar province by killing resisting tribesmen by the hundreds. Meanwhile, Shia militias — some of them backed by Iran — are using the fight against the Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL) to burn Sunni communities to the ground.

Third, Shia Iran remains a huge obstacle as it pulls the strings in Iraq's Shia-dominated government and interferes with plans to arm Sunni tribesmen.

"The United States is not the first player in Iraq. Iran is the first player in Iraq. They think Sunni fighters will be like militias for the Sunnis," Najim al Jabouri, a retired Iraqi army general who is now a fellow at the National Defense University in Washington, told Jonathan Landay of McClatchy. "I think Iran is working very hard to stop the United States' strategy in Iraq."

The US won't incorporate the Sunni tribes until the new Iranian-backed Shia government agrees to provide them with arms. The US also has to figure out how to train the Iraqi police — and the new interior minister, who is now in charge of the police, was previously a senior official of the Badr Organization, a Shia militia trained and armed by Iran.

The problems facing Obama's plan to defeat ISIS are ironic given that the Obama administration effectively handed off Iraq to Iran as a way to remove US troops and still stabilize the country.

The opposite happened in the years after Washington went along with the plan created by Qassem Suleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Qods Force, by continuing to support the authoritarian Iran-backed regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Ali Khedery, the longest continuously serving American official during the Iraq war (2003 to 2009), recently said that America's continued support of  Maliki in December 2010 made it so that "Iraq’s path toward civil war was really inevitable." 

That's because Maliki's new lease on life led him to steer Baghdad "toward a very pro-Iranian and sectarian agenda, which inevitably disillusioned and disenfranchised Sunni Arabs for a second time."

Tim Arango, the Baghdad bureau chief of The New York Times, told Reddit in September that "after 2011 the administration basically ignored the country. And when officials spoke about what was happening there they were often ignorant of the reality."

Khedery argued that the Obama administration "betrayed the promises that the US government had made to the Sunni tribal leaders," who had previously fought with American troops against ISIS-predecessor Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) during the Iraq War.

Now those same tribes the US needs again are being co-opted or slaughtered by the ISIS militants who regrouped (with the help of Saddam-era officials) while Maliki polarized the country.

Saving Iraq is also contingent upon political stability in Syria, where the Iran-backed regime of Bashar Assad continues to rain barrel bombs on civilian areas while Al Qaeda's Syria affiliate routs US-backed rebels, ISIS runs a self-declared caliphate, and Tehran sends more fighters to bolster Assad.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is limited in how much pressure it can put on Iran because it is trying to sign a nuclear deal with Iran — the centerpiece of Obama's foreign policy — in the next three weeks.

So while Syraq burns and the White House scrambles for a nuclear deal, Tehran is using the ISIS crisis to its full advantage.

SEE ALSO: Many Of The Military's Top Leaders Can’t Stand The Retired General Leading The Anti-ISIS Coalition

Join the conversation about this story »

Most bankers spend their days building models on their Excel spreadsheets.

But some of the projects Ed Hale worked on required more gusto.

Hale, the former chairman and CEO of the First Mariner Bank, revealed that he led a double life as a CIA agent from 1991 to 2001 in an interview on WJZ, a CBS affiliate.

“I was the perfect cover because I was all over the world with my vessels and trucking here in America, so I was the perfect person to take somebody and send them out to Afghanistan, Uzbekistan,” he told WJZ.

He even "found himself in the early hunt" for Osama Bin Laden toward the end of his involvement with the CIA, according to WJZ.

“Getting people into places where they could figure out the traces and the pathways of Osama Bin Laden back in the '90s,” Hale said. “I heard his name early on, Osama Bin Laden. I didn’t know who he was. It wasn’t the household name that it became.”

However, Hale's undercover days are long past. He retired from CIA work over 13 years ago, shortly after 9/11.

Aside from banking and CIA work, Hale "is credited with developing the Canton Waterfront" in downtown Baltimore. He owns the Baltimore Blast, a professional indoor soccer team.

While this banker's double life may come as a shock to most people, there was one person who was completely unfazed.

Hale told his mother about his role in the CIA five years after retiring. All she had to say was, "Can you pass the broccoli, please?"

The CIA has not confirmed Hale's role because of privacy concerns.

Read the full interview at WJZ >>

NOW WATCH: T. Boone Pickens: Here Are The 3 Conditions You Should Set Before Taking Any Advice

Join the conversation about this story »

A recent video from the YouTube channel Vickers Tactical shows Green Berets firing heavy weaponry in super slow-motion. 

The Green Berets, otherwise known as the US Army Special Forces, are a special operations force tasked with reconnaissance, counter-terror, and unconventional warfare-related missions. The video was filmed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the home of US Army airborne forces and Special Forces, as well as US Army Forces Command and US Army Reserve Command. 

We have highlighted some of the most hypnotic segments of the video through a series of GIFs below. They show what heavy projectiles look like in flight, and give an idea of just how much firepower these weapons can pack.

The Javelin missile launcher is a "fire-and-forget" system in which the missile can lock onto its target for improved accuracy. The weapon is routinely used against armored targets, such as tanks.

The RPG-7 is an anti-tank weapon originally created by the Russians.

The force of the launch from an M3 Carl Gustav 84 mm recoilless rifle creates a huge plume of dust rising from the ground.

The M3 is used for engaging bunkers and vehicles.

Green Berets also train on MK32s, a handheld grenade launcher that can fire all six of its rounds in 3 seconds.

For engaging enemies behind cover, Green Berets make use of the MK47 40mm grenade launcher which features a ballistic computer and a laser rangefinder. 

 Now here's everything at full speed.

You can watch the entire Vickers Tactical video below. 

SEE ALSO: Putin's elite counter-terror troops have an insane training regimen

SEE ALSO: The craziest small arms maneuvers by South Korean SWAT, in 9 GIFs

Join the conversation about this story »

Mike Krzyzewski is one of the greatest basketball coaches of all time. He's a four-time national champion with the Duke University Blue Devils, and he's coached two gold medal-winning US Olympic men's basketball teams.

But in October, Coach K offered his thoughts on an altogether different and far higher-stakes conflict than anything that could plausibly unfold on a basketball court: the US-led campaign against ISIS.

Krzyzewski, West Point class of 1969 and a former US Army officer, opined on the state of American anti-ISIS efforts during an acceptance speech for the Association of the US Army's George Catlett Marshall award, according to video published by Josh Rogin of The Daily Beast. The hardwood legend used a series of basketball analogies to explain how he believed that President Barack Obama wasn't using all of the resources at his disposal to fight the jihadist extremist group, which has taken over a nearly Belgium-sized chunk of Iraq and Syria.

“I know it’s upsetting to many of you when you hear ‘no boots on the ground.’ It upsets me too," Coach-K said, likening the administration's aversion to committing combat troops to not "using your best players" in a crucial game.

"You're not gonna tell the coach you're not gonna play Grant Hill, JJ Reddik, Laettner," he said, referring to three of Duke's former star players.

Elsewhere in his remarks, he compares trying to fight ISIS without "boots on the ground" to playing Spain and voluntarily sitting Lebron James and Kobe Bryant. 

Krzyzewski doesn't sketch out an alternative anti-ISIS strategy, and was only generally arguing that the mission should have a more aggressive ground component. As it is, the US has around 1700 ground troops in Iraq, most of which are working in an advisory, embassy defense, and intelligence-gathering capacity.

There are a lot of ways to pick at Krzyzewski 's logic. A basketball game takes place in the perfect vacuum of athletic competition, unlike war, which occurs in an endlessly fluid and uncertain social and political environment. There are no allies to assuage, local proxies to arm, enemies to win over, or domestic constituencies to reassure before a star player can enter a game — at least not in the same sense.

But his audience seemed to appreciate the comparison anyway. After all, Krzyzewski has a far more extensive military background than most major American sports figures: he coached and played at West Point, and served in the Army as well. His analogy also included some heartfelt appreciation of the armed forces.

"The fact that we don't play home games here is the result of having boots on the ground,"Krzyzewski  said to applause. 

"I wanna thank you for the countless times your boots have been on the ground and as the result it's given me the opportunity to live in a free country to do what the Hell I want to do," he said later in the speech.

Watch his entire statement on ISIS here: 

Join the conversation about this story »