Christine Wormuth observes U.S.-led training of Ukrainians at Grafenwoehr

Army[1] Secretary Christine Wormuth's tenure may be approaching its end, and she is preparing to pass the baton -- and raft of important issues for the service's future -- to her successor.

Chief among those issues for her are more stability and predictability in the lives of soldiers, more mobility in their careers and flexibility for spouses[2] to build civilian careers, Wormuth told Military.com in a recent interview.

"We have to start looking seriously at the question about how we operate as an Army, what kind of lifestyle we offer," she said. "The things that young people want are demonstrably different from what the people at the age of our generals and command sergeants major experienced."

Read Next: Expanded Tricare Coverage for IVF Should Be in Compromise Defense Bill, Lawmakers Urge[3]

Wormuth, who previously served as the Pentagon's under secretary of defense for policy and made history as the first female Army secretary, was nominated by President Joe Biden and assumed her post in May 2021.

For now, it's unclear how much longer she'll be in the role. Her days are likely numbered if former President Donald Trump, a Republican, wins the election. On the other hand, if Vice President Kamala Harris clinches the presidency, Wormuth could stay on, take on a new role in the administration or leave public service altogether.

When looking to the future -- and potentially a new Army civilian leader -- Wormuth said she believes the service's approach to recruiting[4] needs a fundamental shift away from its old sledgehammer tactics. She envisions a more strategic, nuanced method -- one that positions the Army as a competitive employer, akin to a dynamic tech company actively seeking top talent.

Instead of casting a wide net with generic appeals, Wormuth wants the Army to hone in on specific skill sets, tailoring its outreach efforts to attract a diverse pool of qualified candidates. The service has made some moves toward that mode of thinking, but it will likely take years for it to see the fruits of that labor.

Part of that, Wormuth noted, is that the Army's next wave of leadership needs to look at whether instead of moving to a new duty station every 2-3 years, that model can be shifted to five years.

"It obviously depends on what happens with the election, to see whether I personally will be able to continue to take that forward and work on real solutions," she said. "But if I have a successor, that person and the [chief of staff of the Army] need to be thinking about this."

Part of the rationale for not moving troops around so much is allowing their spouses to more easily build careers. In a report published earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office found that only half of military spouses are employed[5], a third of whom are part-time workers.

The report highlighted the difficulties military spouses face in maintaining consistent employment, largely due to the constant upheaval caused by relocations and the unpredictable schedules of service members. Many spouses often find themselves functioning as single parents, juggling grocery shopping, school drop-offs and managing the household alone while their partners are away on duty or dealing with irregular hours.

In a recent address to the force, Wormuth noted that the service leans far too heavily on "spouses and partners as a de-facto unpaid Army labor force," and that internal service data shows most officers leave the service for more stability and a better family life in the private sector.

"Spouse employment doesn't improve very much year over year," Wormuth said. "Despite various programs we have, fundamentally, if you're moving every 2-3 years, it's hard to have a job, much less build a career."

Meanwhile, the Army is juggling a wide array of missions, from combat operations in the Middle East and Africa to expanding its influence in the Pacific and reinforcing NATO's frontlines in Europe. Most recently, the service deployed 100 soldiers to Israel to bolster air defenses amid growing regional tensions.

Those high demands are taking a heavy toll on the force. Soldiers today are spending more time away from home than they did even during the height of the post-9/11 wars. The constant deployment[6]s, intensive training cycles and prolonged separations from their families have created a relentless pressure-cooker environment for many service members, which has also been exacerbating a suicide crisis in the ranks.

Countering that is difficult, Wormuth explained, as the Army ultimately must meet the needs of the current administration's national security strategy. But there are ways to alleviate pressure on the margins, including combatant commanders properly measuring how many troops they need for a given mission. Another solution could be expanding the Army's permanent presence in Poland, which is now only a tiny garrison.

"We wouldn't be having to move brigades back and forth year after year to do rotation deployments," she said, noting there are also the realities of the up-front cost of building a major base. "Poland has been eager to host for some time now, ... but it's also a question of where would a brigade come from?"

During her tenure, Wormuth has overseen the Army's shift away from two decades of counterinsurgency operations, and its new focus on preparing the force for potential large-scale conflicts -- chief among them China in the Indo-Pacific region. At the same time, the Army has been key in ramping up munitions production to supply Ukraine as it defends against an invasion by Russia.

But Wormuth has also turned her attention inward, making quality-of-life issues for soldiers and their families a North Star of her tenure.

Two key accomplishments were nearly doubling the budget for barracks construction and maintenance to $2 billion; shifting funds from the Army's relatively flat budget to pay for replacing the service's sometimes dilapidated living quarters; and policy saying that only a general can deny a soldier's parental leave -- a radical change to the Army status quo.

Wormuth's name is commonly floated around as a candidate for defense secretary in a Harris administration. It's incredibly rare for Army secretaries to stay on and not be replaced under new administrations, even among the same political parties. Potential picks for her successor in a possible Harris administration are already being vetted, according to one Democratic source with direct knowledge of the situation.

Wormuth has so far brought a rare continuity to the role, serving the second-longest term since the Sept. 11 attacks. Her tenure stands in stark contrast to the position's revolving door nature. The role has often been marked by transient leadership with frequent interim appointments.

John McHugh, who served from 2009 to 2015 under President Barack Obama, held the position for a notably long tenure compared to the norm, making him one of the longest-serving secretaries in recent history.

"We'll see what the American voter decides," Wormuth said. "I just hope that the American public respects whatever the American voter decides and does so without violence."

Related: How the Army's Retiring Top Enlisted Soldier Fought to Make Life Better for Troops by Being Open About Himself[7]

© Copyright 2024 Military.com. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Military.com, please submit your request here[8].

Read more

Former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump has promised that, if reelected, he will kick out millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Trump and his surrogates have offered sparse details for how he would carry out the "largest deportation operation in American history," but have cemented the goal as a top priority. What is known: The strategy would rely on military troops, friendly state and local law enforcement, and wartime powers.

"No one's off the table," Tom Homan, Trump's former head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in July. "If you're in the country illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder."

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance said the administration would start by deporting immigrants who have committed crimes.

At a campaign rally earlier this month in Aurora, Colo., Trump said he would invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 "to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American soil."

The ex-president went on to say that he would send "elite squads" of federal law enforcement officers to "hunt down, arrest and deport" every migrant gang member. Those who attempt to return to the U.S. would be served with 10-year prison sentences without parole, he said, adding that any migrant who kills a U.S. citizen or law enforcement officer would face the death penalty.

How many people would Trump go after?

It's unclear.

In May, Trump told Time magazine he would target 15 million to 20 million people who he said are living illegally in the U.S. The nonpartisan Pew Research Center estimates the actual number to be about 11 million as of 2022. More than 2 million people have entered the country illegally since then.

"Let's start with 1 million," Vance told ABC News in August.

During his entire presidency, from January 2017 to January 2021, Trump deported about 1.5 million immigrants, according to a Migration Policy Institute analysis of federal figures — far fewer than the 2 million to 3 million he speculated about deporting in a 2016 interview as president-elect. The Biden administration is on pace to match Trump's deportation numbers.

What powers would Trump invoke to justify deportations?

The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the president to arrest, imprison or deport immigrants from a country considered an enemy of the U.S. during wartime. Congress passed the law as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts — four laws that tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited criticism of the government, when the country was on the brink of war with France.

The law has been used three times in American history: during the War of 1812 and World War I and after the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.

During WWI, federal authorities placed 6,300 "enemy aliens" — many from Germany — into internment camps.

By the end of WWII, more than 31,000 people from Japan, Germany and Italy, as well as some Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, had been interned at camps and military facilities — in addition to the more than 100,000 Japanese Americans who were forcibly relocated to the same camps and detained under different legal grounds, said Gabriel "Jack" Chin, a UC Davis professor who studies criminal and immigration law.

Chin said he isn't convinced that Trump would make the Alien Enemies Act the cornerstone of his immigration policy because the U.S. is not in a declared war with another nation.

"It would have to rest on an argument that random immigration — that is to say immigration based on individual decisions of individual people — is the equivalent of an invasion from a nation-state," he said. "And that would have to be based on an idea that foreigners as a group are a nation."

Trump has also said he would deploy National Guard troops under the orders of sympathetic governors.

"If I thought things were getting out of control, I would have no problem using the military," he told Time.

Federal law limits the involvement of military troops in civilian law enforcement.

In 2018, Trump sent 5,800 active-duty troops to the southwestern border amid the arrival of a caravan of thousands of migrants from Central America. Initially the troops performed support work such as laying razor wire as a deterrent to crossing, but later the White House expanded their authority to allow them to use force and provide crowd control to protect border agents.

Last year, President Joe Biden sent 1,500 Army and Marine Corps troops to fill critical "capability gaps" at the border as the administration lifted the Title 42 border expulsions policy that Trump had invoked to turn away asylum seekers and other would-be immigrants as the COVID-19 pandemic raged.

Trump has promised to go further during a second term by recalling thousands of troops from overseas to be stationed at the U.S.-Mexico border. He has also explored using troops to assist with deportations and confronting civil unrest.

Is it legal?

Using the Alien Enemies Act, Trump could conduct rapid deportations without the typically required legal processes. He could also circumvent federal law to use military troops in a broader law enforcement capacity to carry out arrests and removals.

But speeding up the deportation process could come with catastrophic consequences, Chin said. Scores of U.S. citizens are already mistakenly deported.

"If the point of this was a roundup, U.S. citizens would be rounded up," he said.

Katherine Yon Ebright, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice, argued in an analysis of the law that courts would likely avoid opining on the presence or absence of an invasion, or whether the perpetrator of the alleged invasion is a foreign nation or government.

"The courts' hesitance to weigh in on these questions heightens the risk that Trump will invoke the Alien Enemies Act despite its clear inapplicability," she wrote. But she added that "courts may strike down an invocation of the Alien Enemies Act under modern due process and equal protection law, justiciable grounds for checking abusive presidential action."

Tom Jawetz, deputy general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security from 2021 to 2022, said courts tend to give deference to the president for executive determinations. But he said this one could be difficult to uphold.

"There could be opportunities for legal attack," he said. "It sounds like they would be stretching it beyond its capacity, beyond what the text [of the law] would allow."

Is it feasible?

Deporting millions of people would be expensive and logistically complex.

Former President Obama, who in 2013 oversaw the most deportations in a year when his administration kicked out 438,000 immigrants, relied on local police turning people over to federal immigration agents. Trump has said he would similarly rely on state and local law enforcement. But many state and local governments, including California, have since limited their cooperation with immigration agents.

Immigration courts are already overwhelmed, and more deportation cases would add to the backlog of 3.7 million cases. Lengthy delays in immigration court proceedings mean immigrants often wait years before their case is completed.

Among the rights afforded to immigrants is a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that prohibits them from being indefinitely detained if their country won't accept them back. Countries including Venezuela and China have previously refused to cooperate with U.S. authorities on deportations.

How much would it cost?

It would cost at least $315 billion to deport the roughly 13 million people in the country illegally, according to an analysis by the American Immigration Council, a group that advocates for policies that welcome migrants. The deportation effort would require building hundreds of new detention facilities, as well as hiring hundreds of thousands of new immigration agents, judges and other staff.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement's budget last year was about $9 billion. Significantly increasing its funding would require the backing of Congress — an uphill battle given current political divisions.

Jawetz said Trump could redirect funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Defense, like he did for construction of the border wall, and could also reassign personnel from other agencies to perform immigration enforcement tasks.

An analysis by CBS News found that it cost an estimated average of $19,599 to deport one person over the last five fiscal years after apprehension, detention, immigration court processes and transport out of the U.S. were taken into account. The average cost of repatriation only increases as more migrants arrive from distant countries such as Cameroon and China.

How are people preparing?

Mass deportation could rip apart deeply rooted families that include citizens and noncitizens, worsen labor shortages and lead to economic upset. Discussion of mass deportation alone would also sow fear in immigrant communities, as happened during Trump's first term.

Jawetz said advocates for migrants are beginning to consider potential legal action. During Trump's presidency, informal Signal and WhatsApp networks emerged across the country in which advocates and community members communicated real-time responses to policy changes they were seeing on the ground.

"We would hope and expect to see much of the same this time around" if Trump wins, the former Homeland Security counsel said. "If you think about it, just the level of anxiety people [would be] living under on a day-to-day basis over a period of years is pretty extraordinary."

___

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com[1]. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

© Copyright 2024 Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

President Biden delivers remarks on lowering the cost of prescription drugs

WASHINGTON — New rules[1] from the White House[2] on the use of artificial intelligence[3] by U.S. national security and spy agencies aim to balance the technology's immense promise with the need to protect against its risks[4].

The framework signed by President Joe Biden and announced Thursday is designed to ensure that national security agencies can access the latest and most powerful AI while also mitigating its misuse[5].

Recent advances in artificial intelligence have been hailed as potentially transformative[6] for a long list of industries and sectors, including military, national security and intelligence. But there are risks to the technology's use by government, including possibilities it could be harnessed for mass surveillance, cyberattacks or even lethal autonomous devices.

“This is our nation’s first-ever strategy for harnessing the power and managing the risks of AI to advance our national security,” national security adviser Jake Sullivan said as he described the new policy to students during an appearance at the National Defense University in Washington.

The framework directs national security agencies to expand their use of the most advanced AI systems while also prohibiting certain uses, such as applications that would violate constitutionally protected civil rights or any system that would automate the deployment of nuclear weapons.

Other provisions encourage AI research and call for improved security of the nation's computer chip supply chain. The rules also direct intelligence agencies to prioritize work to protect the American industry from foreign espionage campaigns.

Civil rights groups have closely watched the government's increasing use of AI and expressed concern that the technology could easily be abused.

The American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday the government was giving too much discretion to national security agencies, which would be allowed to “police themselves.”

“Despite acknowledging the considerable risks of AI, this policy does not go nearly far enough to protect us from dangerous and unaccountable AI systems," Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement. “If developing national security AI systems is an urgent priority for the country, then adopting critical rights and privacy safeguards is just as urgent."

The guidelines were created following an ambitious executive order signed by Biden[7] last year that called on federal agencies to create policies for how AI could be used.

Officials said the rules are needed not only to ensure that AI is used responsibly but also to encourage the development of new AI systems and see that the U.S. keeps up with China and other rivals also working to harness the technology's power.

Sullivan said AI is different from past innovations that were largely developed by the government: space exploration, the internet and nuclear weapons and technology. Instead, the development of AI systems has been led by the private sector.

Now, he said, it is “poised to transform our national security landscape.”

Several AI industry figures contacted by The Associated Press praised the new policy, calling it an essential step in ensuring America does not yield a competitive edge to other nations.

Chris Hatter, chief information security officer at Qwiet.ai, a tech company that uses AI to scan for weaknesses in computer code, said he thought the policy should attract bipartisan support.

Without a policy in place, the U.S. might fall behind on the “most consequential technology shift of our time.”

“The potential is massive,” Hatter said. “In military operations, we’ll see autonomous weaponry — like the AI-powered F-16 and drones — and decision support systems augmenting human intelligence."

AI is already reshaping how national security agencies manage logistics and planning, improve cyber defenses and analyze intelligence, Sullivan said. Other applications may emerge as the technology develops, he said.

Lethal autonomous drones, which are capable of taking out an enemy at their own discretion, remain a key concern about the military use of AI. Last year, the U.S. issued a declaration[8] calling for international cooperation on setting standards for autonomous drones.

© Copyright 2024 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

Just as former president Donald Trump told Fox News [1] last week that he wanted to use the U.S. military to "handle" what he called the "enemy from within" on Election Day, an obscure military policy was beginning to make the rounds on social media platforms favored by the far right. 

The focus? Department of Defense Directive 5240.01[2]

The 22-page document governs military intelligence activities and is among more than a thousand different policies that outline Defense Department procedures.

The Pentagon updated it at the end of September. Although military policies are routinely updated and reissued, the timing of this one -- just six weeks before the election and the same day Hurricane Helene slammed into the Southeast -- struck right-wing misinformation merchants as suspicious.

They latched onto a new reference in the updated directive -- "lethal force" -- and soon were falsely claiming that the change means Kamala Harris had authorized the military to kill civilians if there is unrest after the election.

That's flat-out not true, the Pentagon and experts on military policy told The War Horse.

"The provisions in [the directive] are not new, and do not authorize the Secretary of Defense to use lethal force against U.S. citizens, contrary to rumors and rhetoric circulating on social media," Sue Gough, a Department of Defense spokesperson, said Wednesday night.

But as Trump doubles down on his "enemy from within" rhetoric[3], DOD Directive 5240.01 continues to gain traction among his supporters as ostensible proof that Harris, not Trump, wants to use the military against American citizens.

The Conspiracy Theories

By early last week, "5240.01" began to spike on alt-tech platforms such as Rumble, 4chan, and Telegram, as well as on more mainstream platforms like X, according to an analysis by The War Horse and UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center. 

On Ron Paul’s Liberty Report, a YouTube show, the former Texas congressman told viewers that the policy meant that the country is now a "police state." Republican Maryland congressman Andy Harris told Newsmax host Chris Salcedo last Wednesday that he was concerned the Defense Department was pushing through policies without congressional oversight.

"This is exactly what the Democrats said Trump would do. And they’re doing it," he said. "This means that after an election, they could declare national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States."

Former Trump national security adviser and retired Army Lieutenant Gen. Michael Flynn tweeted the policy update out to his 1.7 million followers, just as he shared the week before a video suggesting the military had manipulated the weather to focus Hurricane Helene’s deadly fury on Republican voters in the South.[4]

This Wednesday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. got into the act in a tweet criticizing Kamala Harris’ response to a story that Trump wanted "the kind of generals that Hitler had"[5]:

"It’s particularly ironic since Biden/Harris have just pushed through DoD Directive 5240.01 giving the Pentagon power -- for the first time in history -- to use lethal force to kill Americans on U.S. soil who protest government policies."

By Wednesday evening, his post on X[6] had 5.6 million views.

Joseph Nunn, a lawyer with the Liberty & National Security program at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, and a leading expert on domestic uses of the military, had a clear response to the social media storm.

"There’s nothing here," he said. "People like Michael Flynn should know how to read a DOD directive."

What ‘5240.01’ Changed

Contrary to claims online, DOD Directive 5240.01[7], which had last been updated in 2020, does not grant any new powers to the military. That’s not how military directives work. Like them or not, all military policies are subject to U.S. law; they do not create new legal authorities. 

Directive 5240.01 has a narrow focus: It only addresses military intelligence, and the section that has circulated online specifically deals with intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement. 

The paragraph that contains the term "lethal force" refers to a requirement that the Secretary of Defense -- the highest level of the Defense Department -- must now authorize military intelligence assistance to civilian law enforcement when lethal force might be involved.

"This is not an independent source of authority," Nunn said. "We really should look at this as an administrative safeguard that is being put in place." 

Military intelligence has long been authorized to provide assistance to federal law enforcement agencies, as well as state and local law enforcement when lives are endangered, under limited circumstances. That could include providing technical expertise or helping with international anti-terrorism or counter-narcotics operations, for instance.

"A reference to lethal force in a directive like this doesn’t mean they’re planning to have snipers on rooftops in covert ops," said Nunn, who has written on limiting the role of the military in law enforcement[8]. "The nature of law enforcement will sometimes involve the use of lethal force." 

A video on Rumble falsely declares that DoD Directive 5240.01 has authorized the military to use lethal force on American citizens.

Why the Change Six Weeks Before Election?

In its response to The War Horse, the Pentagon said the directive’s update was "in no way timed in relation to the election or any other event." 

"Reissuing 5240.01 was part of normal business of the Department to periodically update guidance and policy," the DOD’s Gough said.

The Defense Department has issued or revised 10 other directives and instructions since it updated "5240.01" at the end of September, ranging from a policy on space-related military activities to guidance on public affairs’ officers use of military vehicles.

"It’s not unusual to update DOD regulations," says Risa Brooks, a political science professor at Marquette University and a former senior fellow at West Point’s Modern War Institute. "It doesn’t signal some nefarious agenda."

The update to "5240.01" brings the policy in line with other Defense Department directives. One of those is known as DOD Directive 5210.56 -- an entirely different Defense Department directive[9] than the one updated last month. It lays out rules when troops across the military can use lethal force outside of military operations. 

Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act

Posts online, including the one that Flynn shared, claim that Directive 5240.01 runs afoul of a legal statute known as posse comitatus[10]. The Posse Comitatus Act, which dates back to Reconstruction, generally forbids military troops from acting as domestic police. Civil liberty experts consider it an important civil rights protection against possible military overreach. 

Despite the conspiracy claims spreading online, the directive clearly states that military intelligence units assisting civilian police must consider the Posse Comitatus Act.

"The updated issuance remains consistent with DoD’s adherence to the Posse Comitatus Act, commitment to civil rights, and support of other safeguards in place for the protection of the American people," Gough said.

Spreading misinformation about the military can be particularly damaging "to the relationship between the military and the public," Brooks told The War Horse.

"This sort of politicization, this idea of sowing mistrust in the military in order to gain partisan advantage, is really corrosive," Brooks said. "There’s a motive. There’s something to be gained by spreading these rumors."

Ironically, however, Rep. Harris, the Republican congressman, was right about one thing when he claimed that if Kamala Harris wins, she "could declare national emergency and literally call out the Army in the United States." That’s because any president, regardless of party, has the power to mobilize military troops against American citizens in certain circumstances. Only one candidate -- Trump -- in this year’s presidential election has outright suggested it. 

But that presidential power isn’t granted by a random military policy. It’s granted by the Insurrection Act.

A law nearly as old as the country itself, the act gives a president essentially unilateral authority to temporarily suspend the Posse Comitatus Act and call on military troops to suppress domestic rebellions. The law effectively leaves it up to the president to decide what constitutes a rebellion.

"There are essentially zero procedural safeguards in the Insurrection Act," Nunn says.

President Trump speaks to service members and their families in Italy in 2017. (Marine Corps photo by U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Samuel Guerra)

During his first administration, Trump and his allies reportedly[11] considered[12] invoking the Insurrection Act both during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and again after he lost his re-election bid. And legal experts say that any follow through on Trump’s increasingly frequent threats to use the military domestically[13], including against "radical left lunatics," would likely come through an invocation of the Insurrection Act.

Republicans are saying that the real misinformation is being peddled by Democrats. They claim the Harris-Walz campaign is taking out of context Trump’s comments from his Oct. 13 interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, with some suggesting he was referring to undocumented migrants or to only deploying the military in a national security crisis.

Here is the full quote from Trump when Bartiromo asked if he "expected chaos on election day" from "outside agitators," including "Chinese nationals," "people on terrorist watch lists," "murderers," and "rapists":

"I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people who have come in, destroying our country -- and by the way, totally destroying our country, the towns, the villages, they're being inundated.

"But I don't think they’re the problem in terms of Election Day. I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics.

"And it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen."


This War Horse investigation was reported by Sonner Kehrt and edited by Mike Frankel. 

This story is part of an ongoing investigation into disinformation in collaboration with The War Horse, the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Center for Investigative Reporting, which produces Mother Jones[14] and Reveal.[15]

Editors Note: This article[16] first appeared on The War Horse,[17] an award-winning nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to their newsletter[18]image

© Copyright 2024 The War Horse. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more

More Articles …