politico:

President Barack Obama’s trip to Asia next week will be anchored by a stop in Hiroshima, where he will focus on its dark nuclear past.

But Obama’s visit comes at a moment when U.S. and Asian officials fear the region is entering a newly dangerous atomic future, threatening Obama’s vow to roll back the spread of nuclear arms and possibly touching off an Asian nuclear arms race.

North Korea is expanding its nuclear arsenal and upgrading its ballistic missiles. China is growing and modernizing its stockpile. Most strikingly, Pentagon planners worry that Japan and South Korea might explore developing nuclear arms of their own for the first time—promoted in part by the recent conclusion by U.S. and South Korean intelligence agencies that North Korea’s bizarre regime can now mount a small nuclear warhead on missiles capable of striking Japan and South Korea.

Read more here

politico:

A U.S. drone strike Saturday targeted and “likely killed” Taliban leader Mullah Mansur in a remote area of Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan, a U.S. official said.

The strike was carried out by several drones operated by U.S. special operations forces and targeted Mansur while he was in a vehicle with another man who was also likely killed, said the official, who discussed the strike on the condition of anonymity.

In a statement, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook said Mansur was “actively involved with planning attacks against facilities in Kabul and across Afghanistan, presenting a threat to Afghan civilians and security forces, our personnel, and coalition partners.”

Read more here

politico:

During the Battle of the Wilderness in 1864, a unit of Robert E. Lee’s army rolled up some artillery pieces and began shelling the headquarters of Union commander Ulysses S. Grant. When one of his officers pleaded that Grant move, insisting that he knew exactly what Lee was going to do, Grant, normally a taciturn man, lost his temper: “Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Lee is going to do,” he said. “Some of you always seem to think he is going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. Go back to your command and try to think what we are going to do ourselves, instead of what Lee is going to do.”

The story was recalled to me a few weeks ago by a senior Pentagon officer in citing the April 5 testimony of Army leaders before a Senate Armed Services Subcommittee. The panel delivered a grim warning about the future of the U.S. armed forces: Unless the Army budget was increased, allowing both for more men and more materiel, members of the panel said, the United States was in danger of being “outranged and outgunned” in the next war and, in particular, in a confrontation with Russia. Vladimir Putin’s military, the panel averred, had outstripped the U.S. in modern weapons capabilities. And the Army’s shrinking size meant that “the Army of the future will be too small to secure the nation.” It was a sobering assessment delivered by four of the most respected officers in the Army—including Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, his service’s leading intellectual. The claim is the prevailing view among senior Army officers, who fear that Army readiness and modernization programs are being weakened by successive cuts to the U.S. defense budget.

Read more here

politico:

The Pentagon is asking members of Congress to limit their trips to Afghanistan over the next few months as the Taliban prepares to ramp up its attacks during the summer fighting season.

The military has urged lawmakers in years past to cut down on visits to Afghanistan during the fighting season, but this latest request comes at an especially sensitive time in the 15-year war.

The U.S. military acknowledges the security situation in Afghanistan deteriorated last year after President Barack Obama declared an end to the U.S. combat mission. And the new top U.S. commander there, Army Gen. John Nicholson, is now working on a 90-day assessment, due late this month or early next, of the current plan to reduce the U.S. troop presence at the end of the year.

Read more here

politico:

Washington’s newest arms race pits the State Department against the Pentagon, which are feuding over who should make the decisions on supplying military aid to foreign nations.

And to the consternation of the diplomats, the generals are on a winning streak.

The Pentagon is steering a growing pot of money, equipment and training to help countries fight terrorism, stem the drug trade and deter a rising China and resurgent Russia. Congress is poised to further expand the military’s ability to ship arms overseas — causing the State Department and its supporters on Capitol Hill to warn that some of the aid may contradict broader U.S. interests, such as promoting human rights.

Countries the Pentagon wants to assist include Burkina Faso, which the State Department has singled out for using excessive force against detainees and discriminating against women, and Tajikistan, where the department says torture and “repression of political activism” run rampant. In some recent cases, officials say, the State Department has learned of the aid only after the fact.

“It is militarizing foreign policy,” said one administration official, who described a “groundswell of a freak-out” bubbling up in Foggy Bottom. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, asserted that military officers eager to get results on the battlefield have become the face of the U.S. government in too many countries.

Read more here

politico:

Last month, the Obama administration released its 2017 budget proposal, including thousands of pages on the nearly $600 billion request for the Pentagon. That money is earmarked for a wide array of projects—$1.8 billion in procurement of equipment for the Special Operations Command, for instance, and $1.2 billion for the chemical and biological weapons defense program. In each case, the administration carefully explains the rationale and purpose for the budget request.

But what isn’t included in that massive budget is a comprehensive country-level breakdown of the $10 billion or so in foreign military aid the Pentagon administers every year, euphemistically referred to as Building Partner Capacity. This makes it impossible to calculate the cost of individual aid programs, much less to determine whether the BPC programs are effective. That’s a concern, because BPC sometimes causes more problems than it solves.

Read more here