In an exclusive interview with Charlie Rose at the Pentagon yesterday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned of the unprecedented challenges facing the United States military role on the global stage.

"The world is dangerous. It is damn dangerous," Hagel said.

Earlier on, Hagel conceded to an array of US foreign policy failures read aloud by Rose from the op-ed pages of The New York Times, adding they came in response to an unprecedented and uniquely volatile global environment.

"We live in this imperfect, dynamic, changing, threatening, dangerous, interconnected world that we have never seen before, that we have never seen anything like this before," Hagel said. "And so policies, yes, are predicated on historical knowledge and cultural awareness and all that goes into that. Have we made mistakes over a series of many years? Yeah, I think we have. I think anybody would agree to that. But that's not the issue. That's not the responsibility I have now or the president has or John Kerry. Our responsibilities now are to find ways that we can make it better, find strategies and policies that work within a world of uncontrollables."

Hagel went on to lament the mismatch between these unique challenges facing the DoD and its shrinking budget.

The Defense Department is "being called upon to do more everywhere. I mean, look at the last six months, where — we now are involved where we weren't six months ago," Hagel said. "And our budget continues to be cut. Something doesn't connect here. And that's going to have to change."

Hagel's message echoed part of the speech he delivered at the Reagan Library on Saturday. The location then was an appropriate one; as president Reagan once said that "defense is not a budget issue. You spend what you need."

Perhaps the secretary's only prescription in the hour-long interview — which touched on the threat presented by the jihadist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS and ISIL), the approaching deadline to strike a nuclear deal with Iran, Russia's campaign of careful aggression, and China's growing regional ambitions — was his hope that the new Congress in January would reconsider the department's budget cuts.

Without relief from the cuts Hagel said the United States could find itself losing pole position for the first time since World War II. And that would mean the risk of one day fighting "a fair fight."

"We won't have the readiness. We won't have the capability. We won't have long-term investments that this institution requires to stay ahead of everybody else, as we have since World War II, with the technological edge, with the ability to continue to recruit and retain the best people."

SEE ALSO: This is how the huge defense budget cuts will shape the US military

Join the conversation about this story »

The US military released new footage on Thursday of its airstrikes against the jihadist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL).

The US Military Central Command published five videos in total and described the strikes, which took place Wednesday, as against a building, two tunnels, and two bunkers in Iraq.

"The strikes were conducted as part of Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community," CENTCOM said in a statement. "The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project power and conduct operations."

The statement did not indicate whether the US or one of its coalition partners conducted the strikes.

The first four videos below show strikes against targets in Kirkuk and the last shows a strike against a bunker near Bayji. Both are Iraqi cities north of Baghdad, the country's capital. 

View all five videos below. 

Airstrike against an ISIL Building, Nov. 19, near Kirkuk, Iraq

Airstrike against an ISIL Bunker, Nov. 19, near Kirkuk, Iraq

Airstrike against an ISIL Tunnel, Nov. 19, near Kirkuk, Iraq

Airstrike against an ISIL Tunnel, Nov. 19, near Kirkuk, Iraq

Airstrike against an ISIL Ammunition Bunker, Nov. 19, near Bayji, Iraq

Join the conversation about this story »

China is on the cusp of truly ominous nuclear and space warfare gains, the 2014 annual congressional report from the US China Economic and Security Review Commission states. 

The report warns that China's nuclear warfare capabilities will rapidly modernize and proliferate. In 2013, the Pentagon estimated that Beijing's nuclear arsenal was comprised of roughly 50 to 75 nuclear capable intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that could reach the US. Within the next 15 years, China will likely have an arsenal of over 100 ICBMs. 

Aside from nuclear capabilities, China has made massive inroads into space based war capabilities. China has now become a "preeminent space" power, according to the report's executive summary. Due to China's development of counterspace capabilities, the country will "likely be able to hold at risk U.S. national security satellites in every orbital regime in the next five to ten years." 

Essentially, Beijng could soon have the capacity to destroy any US satellite it wishes. This ability to target US satellites would pose a significant threat to the US military, as it would cripple the use of GPS and satellite communication.

SEE ALSO: This epic map shows the border disputes that could tear Asia apart

Join the conversation about this story »

The European Union has called an extraordinary meeting of the bloc's 28 foreign ministers to discuss the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Sanctions "against those responsible for violence and use of excessive force" are expected.

Anti-government protests in Ukraine reached their most violent point on Tuesday as at least 25 people were killed and hundreds injured amid violent clashes between police and citizens.

The protests have evolved into a full-blown crisis on the ground. What happens now is critical to the geopolitical struggle between Russia and the West.

The crisis began on November 21 when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych snubbed a plan to sign an Association Agreement and trade pact with the EU after Russia persuaded the most populous former Soviet republic to stay in the Kremlin's orbit.

Citizens subsequently flooded the streets and made Independence Square, aka Maidan, their base in central Kiev. The confrontations between the opposition and Yanukovych's government have been escalating since.

On Wednesday, people poured back into Maidan to prepare for fresh clashes with police. (Here's a Maidan live stream.)

From riot police using ancient military tactics to defend against attacks to streets engulfed in flames, the photos coming for the heart of the standoff are incredible.

SEE ALSO: 26 Disquieting Photos Of Armed Russians Still Surrounding Ukrainian Soldiers In Crimea

The anti-government protesters remain defiant, with one man telling Reuters: "They can come in their thousands, but we will not give in. ... We will stay until victory and will hold the Maidan until the end."

Source

Kiev streets have been burning throughout the protests. On Tuesday, the Maidan was particularly alight.

Leading to some incredible fireworks amid the violence.

An intercepted conversation of a Pakistani official spurred the high-profile investigation of a veteran diplomat, according to a front-page New York Times report Friday.

The report, citing unnamed officials, did not specify the details of that conversation. The diplomat, Robin Raphel, has not been accused of a crime.

However, the investigation led to an FBI raid last month of her home, where authorities found classified information.

That development stunned much of the foreign policy establishment in which Raphel is a fixture and one of the highest-ranking female diplomats. A former ambassador and assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, Raphel was considered one of the foremost experts on Pakistan.

"Her longstanding relations with Pakistan's government have also made her an object of scorn in India, the bitter rival of Pakistan, and a country that has grown closer to the United States during both the Bush and Obama administrations," The Times report read. "The Indian news media has aggressively covered the espionage case in recent weeks, with The Times of India describing Ms. Raphel as a 'brazenly pro-Pakistan partisan in Washington' with a 'pathological dislike for India which she did little to conceal.'"

Meanwhile, the State Department has sought to distance itself from Raphel. According to The Washington Post, which first broke the story of the investigation, Raphel was working for the department at the time of the raid "on renewable, limited contracts that depended in part on her security clearances."

"We are aware of this law enforcement matter," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told The Post. "The State Department has been cooperating with our law enforcement colleagues."

Raphel's spokesman has said that Raphel has not been told by authorities that she is being investigated.

"Nothing has changed for Ambassador Raphel," the spokesman, Andrew Rice, told The Times. "She has not been told she is the target of an investigation, and she has not been questioned."

Another strange foreign policy incident is also linked to Raphel's past. In 1988, Raphel's former husband and then-ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, died in a plane crash with the president of Pakistan, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq.

"The cause of the crash was never determined, spawning numerous theories, including that it was an assassination and that nerve gas in a canister hidden in a crate of mangoes had been dispersed in the plane’s air-conditioning system," The Times noted.

Join the conversation about this story »

The P-8 Poseidon, the most advanced search aircraft in the world, has been a part of the US Navy for just a year now. This infographic lays out the converted Boeing 737's capabilities in detecting enemy submarines, surface ships, and other aircraft.

Large metal objects like submarines create variances in the Earth's magnetic field, which the Poseidon P-8 is tuned to thanks to a tailpiece called the Magnet Anomaly Detector (MAD).

Alternatively, the plane can drop sonobuoys (that's sonar buoys) from on high, allowing the crew inside to measure the sound propagation that surrounds these underwater units, just as a submarine or warship typically would. The P-8 can send out more than 100 of these yard-long sonobuoys in a single flight.

At the other end of the plane, the P-8 also sports optical and infrared sensors (the latter for heat detection) and a radar system.

In addition to its primary function as an intelligence-gathering aircraft — it was even used in efforts to find Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 — the P-8 Poseidon carries a few different payloads: cruise missiles, bombs, mines, and even torpedoes.

The Navy currently owns 13 of these, with plans to eventually own a stable of 117 units.

SEE ALSO: This massive Navy plane is the most advanced search aircraft in the world

Join the conversation about this story »

China has entertained the threat of nuclear strikes against west coast cities such as Los Angeles and Seattle, the annual 2014 congressional report from the US China Economic and Security Review Commission states. 

According to the report, a Chinese newspaper sponsored by the Communist Party ran an article in November 2013 about the possibilities of nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) strikes against much of the US's Pacific coast. In the scenario imagined by the newspaper, China's new JIN ballistic missile submarine could act as an ultimate deterrent to any hostile US foreign policy. 

[T]he 12 JL-2 nuclear missiles carried by one JIN nuclear submarine could cause the destruction of five million to 12 million people, forming a very clear deterrent effect. There is not a dense population in the United States' midwest region, so to increase the destructive effect, the main soft targets for nuclear destruction in the United States will be the main cities on the west coast, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.

China has made similar veiled threats against US involvement in their backyard issues before. During the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995 to 1996, Chinese Lieutenant General Xiong Guangkai told the US assistant secretary of defense that "Americans care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan." 

However, threats from China today carry more weight than they did during the 1990s. According to an executive summary of the report, China's nuclear ICBM stockpile capable of reaching the US will likely expand to over 100 missiles within the next 15 years. 

Simultaneously, China is developing a fleet of road-mobile ICBMs, the DF-41, that could be deployed as early as 2015. The DF-41 will be capable of carrying up to 10 missiles that would each have a maximum range of 7,456 miles. This range would allow China to target the entirety of the continental US. 

According to the executive summary, these capabilities are being produced to deter any unwanted US military action as Washington pivots its forces towards the Pacific. In practice, these new nuclear capabilities are providing "Beijing with a more extensive range of military and foreign policy options and potentially weakening U.S. extended deterrence, particularly with respect to Japan." 

Tensions in Asia have been increasing as China attempts to flex its regional muscles. This growth has led to military standoffs between China and US allies Japan and the Philippines. In the event of a war between China and Japan, the US would be treaty-bound to come to Japan's aid. 

However, any military aid could become severely limited by the possibility of a nuclear strike and the possibility of a new Cold War. 

SEE ALSO: These Chinese military advancements are shifting the balance of power in Asia

Join the conversation about this story »

Operation Enduring Freedom, the US's over-13-year-old campaign in Afghanistan, is just a few weeks away from ending. The next chapter in Afghanistan's modern history — one that's left all but the most remote corners of the country impacted by decades of conflict — is about to begin.

The country remains deeply troubled, with a resurgent Taliban, a highly suspect military, and an economy where the opium industry remains the largest single employer. But before the US invasion, before the Russian war, and before the country's Marxist experiment, Afghanistan used to be a far different place.

An astonishing collection of photos from the 1960s came to light in early 2013.

In the 60s, amateur photographer and college professor Dr. William Podlich took a leave of absence from his job at Arizona State University to work with UNESCO in the Afghan capital of Kabul, bringing his wife and daughters with him.

Later, his son-in-law Clayton Esterson found the late doctor's photos and put them on the web. The response was amazing.

Esterson told the Denver Post: “Many Afghans have written comments [on our website] showing their appreciation for the photographs that show what their country was like before 33 years of war. This makes the effort to digitize and restore these photographs worthwhile.”

This report was originally by Geoffrey Ingersoll.

On the left is a picture showing the photographer's daughter in a pleasant park. On the right is that same park 40 years later.

In the 60s, this blonde attracted looks in a still very conservative Afghanistan.

But many people also wore nice western clothes in the 60s, too.

As it turns out, the on-going sanctions against Russia by the US and the eurozone might actually be good for the economy, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the German TV news station ARD.

"True, there are pluses because, let's say, those restrictions on the acquisition of certain goods in the West, in Europe, in the States are introduced for some Russian companies — this forces us to produce that good ourselves," Putin told ARD.

"This comfortable life where we thought only about producing more oil and gas, and buying everything else, is in the past," he added.

In other words, Putin stated that the sanctions will force the Russian economy to evolve past its dependence on the oil and gas industries.

Earlier this year, the US and the EU imposed a series of sanctions on finance, energy and defense sectors in Russia. The sanctions were instituted in an effort to further isolate Russia politically and economically, and in particular, to hurt the "areas of importance to President Putin and those close to him," according to President Obama.

The Russian economy has taken a serious beating following the sanctions. For starters, the ruble is now in free fall and inflation is way above target. Additionally, falling oil prices have put immense pressure on the economy.

Last week, Putin expressed a more pessimistic take regarding these sanctions: "[The sanctions are] harmful, and of course, they cause damage to us, but they're also harmful to them — because they undermine the entire system of economic relations. I really hope, I assume, that this will ultimately be understood and will remain in the past."

Despite the economic turmoil, Putin told ARD that the Russian economy is still growing.

"Regarding growth. This year we saw a modest growth, but it was still growth — somewhere between 0.5 to 0.6 percent. Next year, we plan to grow by 1.2 percent, and then — 2.3 percent the next year — 3 percent growth. In general, these aren't the numbers we would like to see, but it's still growth, and we're confident that we will achieve these targets," Putin said.

You can watch the whole interview in German here or in the original Russian here.

SEE ALSO: 30 Crazy Things You Didn't Know About Russia

Join the conversation about this story »

Within a single year the world has experienced a 61% increase in terrorist attacks, according to the 2014 edition of The Global Terrorism Index from the Institute for Economics & Peace. 

The index covers 99.6% of the world's population and ranks 162 countries based on the impact of terrorist activities along with analysis of economic and social factors. The IEP defines terrorism as "the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

Here are the key findings from the report (and here is the full report):

Iraq Breeds The Most Terrorism Along With These 4 Nations

Approximately 17,958 people were killed in terrorist attacks last year, and of those deaths 82% occurred in just 5 nations: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Syria. 

Of the 162 surveyed nations, Iraq holds the deplorable top spot with approximately 2,492 terrorist attacks in 2013,  which killed 6,362 people.

Combined, these nations accounted for nearly 15,000 fatalities. Since 2000 only 5% of these crimes were suicide attacks.

The four terrorist groups responsible for the most destructive acts are Taliban, Boko Haram, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda. The report notes that radical variants of Islam was “the key commonality for all four groups.” However, the study does not take into account the recent attacks from ISIS since the research tapers off at the end of 2013. 

Although terrorism is on the rise, the report notes that the figures are still relatively small when compared to the 437,000 people killed by homicide in 2013. For example, in the US an individual is 64 times more likely to die from a homicide than terrorism.

The overwhelming method of carrying out a terrorist attack was by way of explosives. Since 2000, only 5% of these crimes were suicide attacks.

At Risk Countries

According to the report, more than 90% of all terrorist attacks occur in countries that have gross human rights violations.

IEP identifies the following 13 countries with a high risk potential of terrorism activity. 

These nations either have violent ongoing conflicts or notable social and economic setbacks. 

Angola, Bangladesh, Burundi, Central African Republic, Cote D' Ivory, Ethiopia, Iran, Israel, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Uganda. 

Causes Of Terrorism

From the report, the following are the 3 main factors associated with terrorism:

Greater social hostilities between different ethnic, religious and linguistic groups, lack of intergroup cohesion and high levels of group grievances.

Presence of state sponsored violence such as extrajudicial killings, political terror and gross human rights abuses.

Higher levels of other forms of violence including deaths from organized conflict, likelihood of violent demonstrations, levels of violent crime and perceptions of criminality.  

SEE ALSO: The World Is Becoming More Violent — Here Are The Most And Least Peaceful Countries

Join the conversation about this story »

For a long time, Japan's military force was an exercise in contradiction. The country has ranked among the world's top military spenders, at almost $50 billion in 2013 — despite a constitution that explicitly forbids war (and even the maintenance of "land, sea, and air forces").

But in July, the cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved a reinterpretation of the pacifist clause called Article 9.

Without changing the constitution's wording, Abe made clear that Japan intended to step up its military prerogative in the region, allowing it to come to the aid of an attacked ally, for instance.

The country spends the equivalent of 1% of its GDP on defense, a figure that could grow after a decade of flat-lining; last year Abe's cabinet approved a five-year spending plan on a laundry list of military hardware: Three surveillance drones, stealth aircraft, 52 amphibious troop carriers, 28 next-generation fighter planes (the F-35) and 17 Osprey aircraft units.

The total expenditure from the plan is estimated to reach $232 billion to $240 billion.

Aside from foreign purchases, Japan has also undertaken the development of its own advanced fighter. The ATD-X is envisioned as being a stealthy air-superiority fighter that could be deployed to counteract the development of fifth-generation fighters by China and Russia. 

Japan's Ministry of Defense plans to use the research developed for the ATD-X as a stepping stone to the eventual development of a sixth-generation fighter that would be designed for counter-stealth capabilities.

Japan also wants to expand its fleet of submarines from 16 units to 22, an asset Japan has much experience leveraging. The National Interest explains that Japan keeps its submarines "at a number of key invasion routes to Japan [...] This concentration is a Cold War holdover, from when Japan expected that Soviet Union might invade during wartime."

The BBC's Tokyo correspondent agrees that Japan's military was once mainly a foil to the Soviet threat, "designed in the days of the Cold War to protect Japan against an invasion from the north, from Russia."

The new perceived threat is China, a country with which Japan's relationship has never fully recovered from the latter's imperial aggression before and during World War II. Alongside China's economic growth has come a mushrooming defense budget, which has steadily climbed since 2000 (to $132 billion).

In 2010, tensions reached a low boil, catalyzed by a territorial dispute over the Senkaku (or Diaoyu) Islands in the East China Sea. More recently, China has shifted tactics over the island chain by sending fishermen en masse to the region in an effort to assert de facto control.

Ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit (APEC) last week in Beijing — where the two countries' leaders halfheartedly shook hands for the cameras — Japan's prime minister did at least open the door to fielding Chinese claims on the territories.

But an eventual armed clash in disputed waters is certainly possible.

"All those hotspots, and what's the common denominator? It's China," Gordon Arthur, a journalist focusing on Asian Pacific defense, told Business Insider. "I think they've been very assertive under president Xi Jinping, so I think it's very possible that an accident or escalation could happen."

That case is the main driver for Japan's renewed defense priorities, and for its move to base its new amphibious capability — including a radar station— in southwestern Japan.

"In case of various situations, it is essential to respond effectively and minimize damage by achieving air superiority and command of the sea," a document from Japan's Ministry of Defense states.

Alongside new military spending is the country's cultivation of regional allies, and stronger cultivation of its long-standing alliance with the United States.

"You can't look at Japan's military as only Japan," said Steven Herman, the Voice of America's bureau chief in Bangkok. "So what Japan has in addition to its own so-called Self-Defense Forces, it has the full weight and might of the United States military behind it."

If ever there was a formula for world wars, it's minor disputes between countries backed by big allies ("it's likely that there will be a third world war to fight for sea rights,"reads one op-ed by a professor at a a Chinese military university). Even Shinzo Abe, a man in leadership rather than academia, this year compared the trade-heavy relationship between China and Japan to that of the UK and Germany before World War I.

The advent of another great war isn't foregone. The Japanese public, for one, still remains largely opposed to war. In a 2013 Pew research poll, 56% of the Japanese public said they were against any form of military effort other than defense, although there has been a gradual trend towards military action becoming more acceptable within the nation.

Tensions in China, Japan, and South Korea are greater than they were even in the '80s, when the wounds of World War II were fresher, said Herman. "What we're finding is more liberal voices in all of these countries," voices advocating for an understanding of other countries' perspectives, "are being squelched to a greater degree than they were in the past."

SEE ALSO: This epic map shows the border disputes that could tear Asia apart

Join the conversation about this story »

THE north-eastern Nigerian town of Chibok is spared little. Earlier this year fighters from the extremist group, Boko Haram, abducted more than 200 local schoolgirls. In the past week insurgents and government troops have traded possession of urban districts and surrounding farmland, leaving much of it burnt.

The Nigerian army, one of the biggest in Africa, should have little difficulty scattering the amateur jihadists. But its arsenal is decrepit and its troops poorly trained. Hence the government's decision to spend $1 billion on new aircraft and training, among other things. Critics question how much will go towards appropriate kit (never mind how much gets stolen by corrupt generals) and whether it is sensible to lavish resources on a force implicated in atrocities and human-rights abuses.

These questions resonate across Africa. Last year military spending there grew by 8.3%, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), faster than in other parts of the world (see chart). Two out of three African countries have substantially increased military spending over the past decade; the continent as a whole raised military expenditure by 65%, after it had stagnated for the previous 15 years.

Angola's defence budget increased by more than one-third in 2013, to $6 billion, overtaking South Africa as the biggest spender in sub-Saharan Africa. Other countries with rocketing defence budgets include Burkina Faso, Ghana, Namibia, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The continent's biggest spender by far is Algeria, at $10 billion.

"Some countries are buying really amazing stuff," says David Shinn, a former American diplomat, now a professor at George Washington University. Ethiopia last year took delivery of the first of about 200 Ukrainian T-72 tanks. Neighbouring South Sudan has bought about half as many. Coastal states such as Cameroon, Mozambique, Senegal and Tanzania are sprucing up their navies. Angola has even looked at buying a used aircraft-carrier from Spain or Italy.

Chad and Uganda are buying MiG and Sukhoi fighter jets. Cameroon and Ghana are importing transport planes to boost their ability to move troops around and deploy them abroad, which they have been ill-equipped to do. For peacekeeping duties they generally ask friendly Western governments for help in airlifting troops, or charter civilian planes.

Despite such handicaps, many are participating in a growing number of African Union and UN peacekeeping missions. Once rarely seen in blue helmets, sub-Saharan soldiers are increasingly replacing troops from Europe and Asia. Ethiopians and Rwandans have acquired a reputation as reliable peacekeepers, all the while benefiting from training as well as from reimbursements for purchases of weapons. A new "business model" for African defence ministries is taking shape.

Many African armies are becoming more professional, too. Their troops are more often paid on time, get decent food and go on regular leave, all of which boosts morale and discipline. "Even small countries like Benin and Djibouti now field respectable forces," says Alex Vines of Chatham House, a think-tank in London.

A big issue is whether troops have enough training to handle sophisticated new gear. Chad makes good use of its Sukhoi SU-25 jets--with the help of mercenaries. On the other hand, Congo-Brazzaville only manages to get its Mirage fighter jets into the air for national-day celebrations. South Africa bought 26 Gripen combat aircraft from Sweden but has mothballed half of them because of budget cuts. Uganda spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Sukhoi SU-30 combat aircraft but little on the precision weapons to go with them.

The reasons for African governments to boost arms spending vary. High commodity prices over the past decade (they are now falling) have filled the coffers of many. Some leaders have been tempted to buy expensive arms to gain prestige. Other are suspected of inflating deals to siphon off money for themselves.

Tanks for everything

But some spending is prompted by genuine security threats. The Sahel and parts of east Africa face a range of extreme jihadists. Coastal states have seen piracy soar, most recently in the west. Offshore discoveries of oil and gas have increased the need for maritime security. More traditional threats, internal as well as external, persist in countries such as South Sudan, where the government is fighting rebels while also facing a hostile northern neighbour.

Industrial ambition also plays a part. A number of countries hope to foster defence manufacturing at home. A huge South African purchase of arms from, among others, Germany and Britain, agreed to more than a decade ago, included promises of "offsets" whereby local firms would help assemble jets and ships. Angola plans to build its own warships. Nigeria and Sudan make ammunition. Four European arms manufacturers set up African subsidiaries this year: Antonov is going into Sudan; Eurocopter is in Kenya's capital, Nairobi; Fincantieri, an Italian shipbuilder, is in the country's main port, Mombasa; and Saab is setting up a plant for its military aircraft in Botswana.

These military improvements carry risks. Ambitious officers may misinterpret new might for political right--and may be tempted to seize power, as many have done before. Sophisticated arms may also fall into the wrong hands; witness the array of Libyan weapons that have fuelled conflicts across Africa, from Mali to the Central African Republic, since the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

These structural changes to African armies may gradually alter the type of war that could be fought on the continent. Since the anti-colonial guerrilla wars of the past century, most African conflicts have been internal. Few countries previously had the ability, let alone the inclination, to fight their neighbours. In the late 1990s, several countries, including Angola and Zimbabwe, sent forces to take part in Congo's civil war--to little avail. Ethiopia and Eritrea fought each other in 1998-2000. Tanzania sent its army into Uganda, along with guerrillas returning from exile, to overthrow Idi Amin in 1978. In general, however, few disputes between African countries have been liable to spark wars. But the build-up of beefier armies is bound to carry a risk.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Join the conversation about this story »

Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his belief that Russia is the strongest nation, which will lead to — in his eyes — a positive end in Crimea, according to an interview with the state-owned TASS news agency.

During the interview, Putin stated that everything will "end well" in Crimea because "it's just that we're stronger [than] everybody."

"We're stronger," he said, "because we're right. When the Russian feels that he's right, he's unstoppable. I'm saying this sincerely, not just to pontificate," he added.

Right now, there is an ongoing conflict in the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine — areas that have had predominantly ethnic Russian populations since the days of the Soviet Union.

Back in March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, which was previously a part of Ukraine. Since then, there has been conflict between the pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian government — most notably in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

Certain inhabitants of the region want to join Russia, while others want to remain in Ukraine.

But the Russian government has its own plan for Ukraine: "federalization."

"Each region [in Ukraine] would have control of its economy, taxes, culture, language, education, and 'external economic and cultural connections with neighboring countries or regions,'" Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has previously stated about the "federalization" plan, according to The Guardian.

This would give greater autonomy to the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine — where the conflict is currently going on. In simple terms, these regions would be directly associated with Russia, rather than with Ukraine.

Noted American political scientist Ian Bremmer recently stated that "the Kremlin is moving towards making Crimea and the Southeast Ukraine a single place" and "there's very little the Ukrainians can do" because their "military will remain badly outgunned, and the local populations in the region remain fairly anti-Kiev."

Although some people have expressed their beliefs that Putin is just winging it right now in Ukraine, Putin stated in the TASS interview that the current situation — including the actions in Crimea and afterwards — "is a strategic decision."

"I have developed a certain style over the years. I never make arbitrary decisions — the ones whose outcomes I cannot see," Putin said. "It's like when you're [driving] on the road: if you're not sure, don't pass [the car next to you]... You have to be absolutely clear that there's no upcoming traffic — that you're truly in control of the situation."

"Those who are trying to compete with us, are on the wrong side of the road. We're on the right side of the road, and we're on cruise control," Putin stated about the current situation.

Join the conversation about this story »

ON NOVEMBER 14th Brazilian police raided the offices of Petrobras, a vast state-controlled oil firm at the centre of a corruption scandal. Back in 2010 Petrobras was a symbol of Brazil's economic rise. It conducted the largest global equity raising on record, to pay for the development of fields off Brazil's coast.

Now, bribes are the least of it. Despite an investment binge its production growth has been anaemic. Its returns on capital and its shares have slumped. Its balance-sheet is shot, former executives have been arrested and its accounts may be restated. Petrobras is today an exemplar of something else: the lousy performance of state-owned firms.

Ronald Reagan said the nine most terrifying words in the English language were "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." For investors the scariest words may be, "I'm from a state-owned firm and I want your capital." Across the world, big, listed state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that were floated, or raised mountains of equity, between 2000 and 2010 have had a dismal time.

Their share of global market capitalisation has shrunk from a peak of 22% in 2007 to 13% today. Measured by profits their decline is less stark, mainly because big Chinese banks continue to report inflated profits that do not accurately reflect their rotten books. Exclude them and SOEs' share of earnings has slumped, too (see chart). It will probably fall further.

In Russia, Gazprom, which the Kremlin once predicted would be the first firm to be worth $1 trillion, has crumpled: it is worth $73 billion today. India's mismanaged state-owned banks command miserly valuations compared with their private peers. Since 2009 the Shenzhen stockmarket's index, which is dominated by private firms, has rocketed past that of its rival in Shanghai, which is mainly made up of state companies, notes Sanford C. Bernstein, an analysis firm.

Once, investors swooned at the rise of China Mobile, a state-owned operator. Now they admire Xiaomi, a wily private handset-maker. Shares in Vale, a Brazilian miner in which public-sector pension funds have a big stake, have lagged those of its private-sector peers, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, by over 40% in the past three years.

Overall, the SOEs among the world's top 500 firms have lost between 33% and 37% of their value in dollars since 2007, depending on how one treats firms that were unlisted at the start of the period. Global shares as a whole have risen by 5%.

It was not meant to be like this. As the West slipped into a crisis in 2007-08, state capitalism supposedly took the business world by storm, particularly in the emerging world. It had two elements. Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) gathered the excess savings that oil-rich and Asian countries accumulated, investing them overseas. And a new, hybrid kind of SOE was in vogue.

When Europe and Latin America privatised firms in the 1980s and 1990s, they often went the whole hog, with the state selling out completely--think of British Gas or telecoms in Brazil. But in the 2000s private investors were invited to play only a subordinate role, with the state keeping a controlling stake and making enlightened decisions in the interests of all. Investors lapped it up: they forked out more than $500 billion in SOE equity raisings between 2000 and 2012.

What went wrong? As trade surpluses and commodity prices have fallen, SWFs have accumulated cash at a slower rate and spent less on buying stakes in firms. In 2013 their investments were $50 billion, under half the level of 2008, reckons Bernardo Bortolotti of Bocconi University in Milan.

SOEs, meanwhile, have been through hell. Tumbling commodity prices have hurt energy and mining firms. Sanctions have clobbered Russian firms. Corruption scandals have erupted, and not just in Brazil. Jiang Jiemin, PetroChina's ex-boss, was arrested in 2013, for example.

But at the root of the underperformance is what looks like a huge misallocation of capital by SOEs. Given licence by politicians, and with little need to pacify stroppy investors, their capital investment surged, accounting for over 30% of the global total by big listed firms.

More than $2.5 trillion has been invested in telecoms networks, hydrocarbons fields and other projects by SOEs since 2007. Gazprom built an alpine ski resort for the winter Olympics. Etisalat, a telecoms firm in the United Arab Emirates, blew $800m on an operation in India whose licence was cancelled after an anti-graft inquiry. To counteract the global slowdown after 2007-08, state banks went on a lending binge in China, India, Russia, Brazil and Vietnam. The resulting bad debts are only now being recognised.

As the balance-sheets of SOEs have grown faster than profits, return on equity has slumped from 16% in 2007 to 12% today, less than the 13% achieved by private firms. China's four biggest banks, with their inflated earnings, flatter this picture. Excluding them, SOEs' return on equity falls to 10%. Cash returns to investors are poor: SOEs' dividends and buy-backs are typically only 10-15% of the global total. Flabby and stingy, SOEs are now priced by investors at about their liquidation value.

For governments and managers of SOEs the immediate task is firefighting. While SOES' aggregate balance-sheet is passable, some companies are too indebted. Vietnam has had one big SOE default, by a shipyard. Petrobras has net debt equivalent to four times its gross operating profit. Rosneft, a Russian oil firm, must refinance $21 billion of bonds before April. Its bond yields have risen sharply and it wants state aid. Many SOE banks in the emerging world need to be recapitalised.

Next, investment levels and costs need to be cut, so as to lift returns on capital. There is little sign that this is happening yet. Natural-resources SOEs will probably be slower to react to lower commodity prices than their private-sector peers. All state firms find it hard to lay off people--the SOEs among the world's 500 most valuable firms employ 8m, and their workforce has risen by a fifth since 2007. Those in industries facing disruption from the web, particularly banking and telecoms, will probably need redundancy schemes.

Privatisation 3.0

In the longer term, managers need to rethink how firms are run. Interviewed by The Economist in April, Xi Guohua, the chairman of China Mobile, talked of introducing incentive-based pay, awarding staff shares and establishing stand-alone units with freedom to innovate. "The old organisation will restrict our development and stand in our way, and we are fully aware of the urgency of such changes," he said.

China Mobile's efforts are part of a wider drive in China to make SOEs more efficient by deregulating prices and interest rates, introducing more private investors and increasing competition. Narendra Modi, India's newish prime minister, has a similar plan to open up Coal India, a notoriously inept monopolist, to competition and to resuscitate India's state-run banks.

Yet at the heart of all these efforts, a tension remains: who are SOEs run for? The public good, as interpreted by politicians? Or shareholders? Only some countries have resolved this, either by the state selling out completely, or by establishing robust mechanisms to keep firms at arms' length from the government, such as at Temasek, Singapore's state holding company.

Until this question is resolved the value-destroying impulses of SOEs will remain, and investors will be wary of both established firms and newcomers. That is why, as the box alongside describes, not a single foreign investor took part in Vietnam's latest flotation of a state firm.

Click here to subscribe to The Economist

Join the conversation about this story »

Afghanistan's new president has quietly gotten rid of the country's ban on controversial night raids that are used to catch Taliban insurgents off-guard, The New York Times reports. 

The country's previous president, Hamid Karzai, had mostly banned the raids even though the US government has said they're key to catching insurgents. Afghans are worried about the resumption of the raids, which have allegedly killed civilians in the past. From The Times:

“The Taliban will be going into other people’s houses, and the Americans will be behind them again, and there will be losses again of women and children when Taliban shoot from people’s houses, and in reaction the foreigners will bomb or kill them,” said Haji Abdullah Jan, a local shura leader in the Maiwand district of Kandahar Province. “I am not in favor of night raids because we have experienced such huge losses from them during those past years.”

The raids will resume in 2015 and will include American Special Operations Units, according to The Times.

In 2010, The Washington Post reported on a night raid that killed nine Afghan man and led to violent local protests. "NATO describes it as a successful mission that took out ruthless Taliban insurgents," the Post reported. "Relatives at the house said it was a slaughter of civilians."

Join the conversation about this story »

From 1998 to 2008, two twin brothers distributed thousands of pounds of cocaine across Chicago and other major US cities. 

Then Pedro and Margarito Flores started cooperating with the feds.

Originally sealed for the brothers' protection, their testimony recently became available to the public. The documents reveal fascinating details about how one of the largest Mexican drug cartels functioned. 

After their arrest, the Flores brothers went on record, giving information about a criminal who was even more sought-after: Joaquín Archivaldo Guzmán Loera, more widely known as "El Chapo," the head of the Sinaloa cartel, one of the most powerful drug-trafficking organizations in the world.

In 2013, the cartel supplied 80% of the heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine flooding the streets of Chicago, according to the DEA. 

On many occasions, the brothers collaborated with the cartel, which used a wide array of creative methods for transporting cocaine and money from Central America into the US. They once even passed the operation off as a humanitarian aid project. 

The Business

After slinging drugs in the US for several years, Pedro and Margarito, fearing arrest, moved back to Mexico in 2003 and 2004, respectively. But they set up an elaborate network that would allow them to sell cocaine in the US from Mexico, according to the testimony. 

This network included three groups: cocaine and heroin suppliers in Mexico; a US crew; and about 30 wholesale customers across eight US cities: Chicago; New York; Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia; Cincinnati; Columbus, Ohio; Detroit; and Los Angeles.

Between 2006 and 2008 — what the Flores brothers considered "peak distribution"— the pair facilitated the transport and sale of approximately 3,300 to 4,400 pounds of cocaine every month. While wholesale value varies based on numerous factors including the location of the shipment, a kilogram, or about 2.2 pounds, in Chicago could easily run $30,000, according to their testimony. As such, their operation moved $60 million of drugs primarily through the Midwestern metropolis every month.

How It Worked

Prior to late 2007, the Flores twins moved almost all of their drugs in semi-trucks and trailers with trap compartments in the roof.

After that, Pedro and Margarito started working with a man named Alfredo, who claimed to be a lifelong friend of El Chapo, even godfather to his son. On behalf of the cartel leader, Alfredo helped them transport cocaine from Colombia to Mexico in airplanes, submarines, and trains. 

The Flores brothers soon agreed to establish legitimate shipping companies with Alfredo and his wife, which gave them a simpler method for transporting cocaine to the US. The brothers didn't want to run the businesses, but they invested $600,000 in startup money and agreed to pay $1,000 for every kilogram moved by train. 

Once the cocaine arrived, the Flores brothers maintained several warehouse and "stash houses" in Chicago and other cities. There, the crews unloaded shipments of drugs for customers, and they counted and packaged the profits of those sales. All of the money went back to suppliers in Mexico. 

Also, for a 3% to 7% fee, Alfredo's wife shipped cash profits from one location to another using both planes and cars. The shipments ranged from $100,000 to several million, according to the brothers' statements. 

Alfredo also gave the brothers access to cocaine transported in 747s and submarines by El Chapo and other members of the Sinaloa cartel, like Ismael Zambada-Garcia, known as "El Mayo" or "Mayo Zambada."

They used the 747s with no seats to ship clothing to Central or South America as part of humanitarian aid projects. Once the planes arrived, workers unloaded them and replaced the clothes with up to 13 tons of cocaine for the return trip to Mexico, according to the testimony. After landing at Mexico City International Airport, El Chapo's paid contacts unloaded the cocaine and transported it out of the airport.

The process also often required smaller airplanes, submarines, tractor trailers, fishing vessels, speed boats, personal automobiles, and El Chapo's infamous tunnel system.

The Sinaloa Cartel Today

After a 13-year manhunt, Mexican marines finally caught up with El Chapo in February. (He escaped from a high-security Mexican prison in a laundry cart in 2001.) 

El Chapo appeared on numerous lists of both the wealthiest and most wanted in the world. His bloody feuds with two other cartels, the Juárez and Los Zetas, have left nearly 80,000 people dead in the past seven years.

After El Chapo's capture, El Mayo reportedly took over the Sinaloa cartel. Despite his son's arrest in November, El Mayo remains at large, with unknown whereabouts.

"I knew that once the people I have talked about today found out I was cooperating, they would try to kill me and my family," Margarito, now in witness protection, said in his statement.

SEE ALSO: The World's Most Notorious Drug Kingpin: 'I'm A Farmer'

Join the conversation about this story »

Vienna (AFP) - Time runs out Monday for the biggest chance in years to resolve the Iranian nuclear standoff, as Tehran and world powers make a final push for a deal but with a risky extension looking likely.

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (the P5+1) have been locked in talks with Iran for months, seeking to turn an interim deal that expires at midnight (2300 GMT) on Monday into a lasting accord.

Such an agreement, after a 12-year standoff, is aimed at easing fears that Tehran will develop nuclear weapons under the guise of its civilian activities, an ambition it hotly denies.

But a last-ditch diplomatic blitz in recent days involving US Secretary of State John Kerry and other foreign ministers to secure a deal appears to have failed to bridge the remaining major differences.

As a result, late Sunday a senior US State Department official said for the first time that the powers and Iran were now discussing putting more time on the clock.

The official said it was "only natural that just over 24 hours from the deadline we are discussing a range of options ... An extension is one of those options."

This came after US Secretary of State John Kerry met his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif for the sixth time since Thursday in an attempt to break the deadlock. 

British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said however that the parties would still make a "big push tomorrow (Monday) morning to try and get this across the line".

"Of course if we're not able to do it, we'll then look at where we go from there," he said.

"We're still quite a long way apart and there are some very tough and complex issues to deal with".

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was expected in the Austrian capital early Monday, completing the line-up of all the six powers' foreign ministers.

This included Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, a key player in the talks. Earlier in the week he said all the elements were in place for a deal with just "political will" missing.

- Gaps -

Diplomats on both sides say that despite some progress, the two sides remain far apart on the two crucial points of contention: uranium enrichment and sanctions relief.

Enriching uranium renders it suitable for peaceful purposes like nuclear power but also, at high purities, for the fissile core of a nuclear weapon.

Tehran wants to massively ramp up the number of enrichment centrifuges -- in order, it says, to make fuel for future reactors -- while the West wants them dramatically reduced.

Iran wants painful UN and Western sanctions that have strangled its vital oil exports lifted, but the powers want to stagger any relief over a long period of time to ensure Iranian compliance with any deal.

"What a deal would do is take a big piece of business off the table and perhaps begin a long process in which the relationship not just between Iran and us but the relationship between Iran and the world, and the region, begins to change," US President Barack Obama in an ABC News interview aired Sunday.

- Extension -

In view of the difficulties -- and of the dangers posed by the alternative of a complete collapse -- many experts have long believed that the negotiators would put more time on the clock. 

An Iranian source told AFP earlier Sunday, while stressing at that point that adding time was not yet on the table, that the extension "could be for a period of six months or a year." 

Another extension -- as happened with an earlier deadline of July 20 -- however carries risks of its own,including possible fresh US sanctions that could lead Iran to walk away.

Pushing back the cut-off point will also fuel accusations from Israel, the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear-armed state, that its arch foe Iran is merely buying time to get closer to the bomb.

Arms Control Association analyst Kelsey Davenport told AFP that an extension of six months to a year "would not fly" with the other parties.

Any extension "will have to be very short because there are too many hardliners, particularly in Washington and Tehran, that want to sabotage this deal," she told AFP.

Join the conversation about this story »

Entrenched corruption in the Iraqi military and police forces is undermining the fight against the Islamic State militant group.

The US is seeking to empower Iraqi forces and Sunni tribes by funneling more than $1 billion in supplies and weapons through the government in Baghdad. "But some of the weaponry recently supplied by the army has already ended up on the black market and in the hands of Islamic State fighters, according to Iraqi officers and lawmakers,"The New York Times reports. "American officials directed questions to the Iraqi government."

Tribes argue that the US should arm them directly, but the Shia-dominated Iraqi government and its main backer, Iran, are wary of bolstering Sunni groups.

"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 recently. "I think Iran is working very hard to stop the United States' strategy in Iraq."

Meanwhile, Shia militias — some of them backed by Iran — are using the fight against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) to burn Sunni communities to the ground.

Despite corruption potentially subverting the US-led effort, it is unclear how much the roughly 3,000 US advisers in the country can help.

One American official involved in the program told The Times that working with the tribes and combatting military corruption was "not part of the advisers' role, and there is no reason to believe that advisers' presence will reduce corruption."

Iran, which also backs the Shia government of Syrian President Bashar Assad in neighboring Syria, reportedly see things differently.

"The American approach is to leave Iraq to the Iraqis," Sami al-Askari, a former member of Iraq's parliament and one-time senior adviser to former prime minister Nuri al-Maliki, told Reuters recently. "The Iranians don't say leave Iraq to the Iraqis. They say leave Iraq to us."

Check out the full report at The Times >

Join the conversation about this story »

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is resigning, The New York Times reported on Monday.

A senior administration official subsequently confirmed to Business Insider that Hagel would resign. They said Hagel would announce his decision alongside the president at 11:10 a.m. 

"A successor will be named in short order, but Secretary Hagel will remain as Defense Secretary until his replacement is confirmed by the United States Senate," the official said.

Hagel was sworn in as secretary of defense in February 2013. The official characterized his decision to step down as normal administration turnover in the wake of the midterm elections earlier this month. 

"In October, Secretary Hagel began speaking with the President about departing the Administration given the natural post-midterms transition time. Those conversations have been ongoing for several weeks," said the official.

Republicans scored widespread victories in the midterms in what was widely seen as a rebuke to President Barack Obama. The Times report described Hagel's resignation as a response to criticism of the Obama administration's handling of several major recent global threats. 

"His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State," the Times reported. 

An NBC news report published Monday cited "senior defense officials" who said Hagel was "forced to resign" because "the White House has lost confidence in Hagel to carry out his role at the Pentagon." One of the officials quoted by NBC delivered an especially blunt assessment of Hagel:

"He wasn’t up to the job," they said.

The US-led fight against the jihadist group Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) has been hampered by corruption in the Iraqi military and a lack of coherent US strategy in Syria that has hobbled the large international coalition that joined the effort.

However, the administration official who spoke to Business Insider praised Hagel's leadership at the Department of Defense.

"Over the past two years, Secretary Hagel helped manage an intense period of transition for the United States Armed Forces, including the drawdown in Afghanistan, the need to prepare our forces for future missions, and tough fiscal choices to keep our military strong and ready," said the official. "Over nearly two years, Secretary Hagel has been a steady hand, guiding our military through this transition, and helping us respond to challenges from ISIL to Ebola." 

Hagel is from Nebraska and earned two Purple Hearts serving in the Vietnam War. After his time in the military, Hagel worked as a staffer for a Republican congressman and as an organizer for President Ronald Reagan's 1980 White House bid. Following Reagan's election, Hagel was made a deputy administrator for the Veterans Administration. He resigned that post after reportedly "battling to oust his boss," who felt soldiers returning from Vietnam were exaggerating the effects of Agent Orange.  

After leaving government, Hagel launched a successful business career including founding a cellphone company that was bought out by A T&T in 1999. His businesses left Hagel with a multimillion dollar fortune.  

Hagel went on to run for Senate in Nebraska in 1996 as a Republican. He took office after scoring a major upset victory against Ben Nelson, a Democrat who was the sitting governor of Nebraska. With his victory, Hagel became the state's first Republican senator in 24 years. During his campaign, Hagel promised that, if elected, he would retire after two terms in the Senate. He made good on that campaign vow and left office in 2009.

Despite his membership in the GOP, during his time in the Senate, Hagel was an outspoken critic of Republican President George W. Bush's handling of the Iraq War. In the leadup to the war, Hagel, who was known for an internationalist approach to foreign policy, was adamant it would be a mistake for America to act alone against the regime of then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

"I think it would be wrong, very shortsighted, and very dangerous for the United States to unilaterally move on Iraq," said Hagel at the time. 

Though he eventually voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq War, Hagel continually expressed misgivings about the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. At a 2007 hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, he referred to the war as a "ping-pong game with American lives." 

In 2008, Hagel released a book, "America: Our Next Chapter" wherein he outlined his "independent" political positions. 

"At the very least, we need more independent leadership, with an independent platform not captive to the restraints of party politics," he wrote.  

Hagel's willingness to challenge his own party earned him the admiration of many liberals in Washington. However, it also left him with conservative opponents. Last year, after President Barack Obama nominated Hagel to be secretary of defense, there was a tough fight in Congress over his confirmation.

Senate Republicans initially blocked Hagel. According to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, it was the first time in history a nominee for secretary of defense was filibustered. Republicans, who disputed the notion they were filibustering Hagel, were reportedly concerned about his positions on Israel and Iran, his past criticism of the Iraq War, and paid speeches he gave to private groups after leaving the Senate.  Hagel was eventually confirmed last February following a cloture vote. 

In a speech at the Pentagon after he took the oath as the secretary of defense on Feb, 27, 2013, Hagel said the world was facing a "time of tremendous challenge."

"We’ve made mistakes. We’ll continue to make mistakes. But we are a force for good," said Hagel. "And we should always keep that out in front as much as any one thing that drives us every day." 

This post was last updated at 10:44 a.m. 

SEE ALSO: One Of These 4 People Is Most Likely To Replace Chuck Hagel

Join the conversation about this story »

Chuck Hagel's tenure as Secretary of Defense began inauspiciously, with a nomination battle that ended with only 58 members of the Senate voting to confirm their former colleague. And it's ending well before Barack Obama's second term as president is up, with the dovish former Nebraska senator and decorated Vietnam veteran announcing his resignation on November 24.

Hagel's successor faces challenges ranging from the US-led effort against ISIS in Iraq and Syria to the end of major combat operations in Afghanistan to the Asia pivot to reforming the military's size and force structure. Here are Hagel's most likely replacements:

Michelle Flournoy: One of the leaders of Obama's transition team at the Department of Defense, Flournoy was an under-secretary of defense from 2009 to 2012, during Robert Gates' widely praised leadership at the Pentagon. She was was involved in implementing the surge in Afghanistan and is "widely seen as an advocate for the counterinsurgency approach," former Navy intelligence officer Robert Caruso told Business Insider. 

Flournoy is also the co-founder of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think-tank that became a Defense Department-in-waiting for Democratic-aligned natural security hands during the second Bush administration. CNAS is now viewed as an ideas factory — if not an adjunct — for the Obama-era Pentagon.

Ashton Carter: The theoretical physicist and Clinton-era appointee was the Pentagon's second-in-command under Hagel, responsible for "the day-to-day management of its 2.2 million employees,"according to the Washington Post. Carter resigned from this position in October of 2013, amid rumors that he was uneasy with being passed up for the Pentagon's top job ten months earlier.

But he made his time at Hagel's top deputy count, pushing cyber defense as a national security priority and helping to set up US Cyber Command.

Jack Reed: The Rhode Island democratic senator is a former Army officer and one of only 23 senators to vote against authorizing the use of force in Iraq in 2002. He is a longtime member of the Armed Services Committee and enjoys close relations with top military brass: "Reed is respected by Central Command officials especially and military officials generally," says Caruso.

Kathleen Hicks: Although an outside possibility compared to the other three people on this list, Hicks was the Pentagon's second in command for policy until May of 2013. She advised the sectary of defense on long-term policy issues like the US's pivot to the Pacific, and led the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review of the military's "roles, missions and organization issues."

As analyst Joshua Foust put it on Twitter, Hicks is "deeply experienced" and lacks Flournoy's close association with counter-insurgency doctrine — a policy and intellectual movement now discredited in certain circles after its mixed record of success in Iraq and Afghanistan.

SEE ALSO: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is resigning

Join the conversation about this story »