You’ve heard about the men who come in the night, the badasses, the snake eaters. These are the rough-and-tumble soldiers who spill out of helicopters and kick in doors, neutralizing a high-value target and egressing before locals get a clue.

These are the gritty recon Marines who stalk through the underbrush before taking down a terrorist camp.

But special ops isn't just one thing — it's a bunch of different things. Operators from different units conduct missions in different ways.

Check out this handy We Are The Mighty guide that covers the basics of special ops:

Army

Delta Force

Along with SEAL Team 6, Delta Force is one of the most famous and capable antiterrorism teams in the world.

Its members are pulled from all branches of the US Armed Forces, primarily from the Army’s Special Forces and Rangers (more on them in a minute). As an antiterrorism task force, Delta is tasked with hunting down some of America’s worst threats.

They were sent after Osama bin Laden in 2001, and more recently they killed Abu Sayyaf, a key figure in ISIS. They specialize in “direct action.”

Special Forces (aka Green Berets)

Special Forces soldiers focus on supporting foreign allies by training with and fighting beside their military and police forces. Special Forces engage in reconnaissance and direct-action missions.

The multitool of special operations, SF soldiers are sometimes tasked with peacekeeping, combat search-and-rescue, humanitarian, and counternarcotic missions.

Rangers

The modern 75th Ranger Regiment was established with three Ranger battalions in 1986, though its roots date from to World War II.

The Rangers form three infantry battalions that focus on moving fast and striking hard. They are deployable to anywhere in the world within 18 hours. Rangers are primarily a direct-action force, entering an area forcibly and engaging whatever enemies they find.

The Night Stalkers (160th Special Operations Air Regiment)

The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, or SOAR, flies helicopters in support of other special-operations units, especially the Army units discussed above. They fly modified Chinook and Blackhawk helicopters as well as the MH/AH-6M Little Bird.

The Night Stalkers can drop combatants on a battlefield and provide air support to fighters on the ground.

Navy

SEAL Team 6 (DEVGRU)

Like Delta, SEAL Team 6 is a top-tier antiterrorism force. Officially named United States Special Warfare Development Group and sometimes called DevGru, SEAL Team 6 specializes in arriving violently and killing bad guys.

They recruit their members from the Navy SEAL community (discussed below). Though they train to operate anywhere in the world, they specialize in fighting on the waters and the coast.

SEALs

SEALs are named for their ability to fight in the sea and air and on land. Though designed to conduct operations that begin and end in the water, modern teams routinely operate far from water.

They primarily conduct reconnaissance and perform direct-attack missions but are capable of training with and fighting beside foreign militaries like US Army Special Forces soldiers do. They are also the operators most known for working with the CIA’s Special Activities Division.

Special Warfare Combatant — Craft Crewmen

SWCC, pronounced “swick,” provide covert insertions in coastal areas, most notably for the Navy SEALS. They operate small boats they can use to drop off operators and provide heavy weapons support.

They can drop their boats from planes or helicopters and be picked up by helicopter. Additionally, SWCC teams have their own medics who provide care for special operators when evacuating patients, and they get at least 12 weeks of language training.

Marine Corps

Marine Special Operation Regiment (Raiders)

Similarly to the Army Special Forces, Marine Raiders specialize in training, advising, and assisting friendly foreign forces. They can conduct direct-action missions: Kicking down doors and targeting the bad guys.

They receive more training in maritime operations as well as in fighting on oil and gas platforms than their Army counterparts.

Recon

Some of the world’s best reconnaissance troops, Recon Marines primarily support other Marine units, though they can provide intelligence to other branches. They move forward of other troops, getting near or behind enemy lines, where they survey the area and report back to commanders.

They can also engage in assaults when ordered, though that mission has been transferred in part to the Marine Special Operations Regiment discussed above.

Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company

This Marine Corps ANGLICO’s primary mission is to link up with friendly units and direct assets from different branches. That means they have to be able to tell helicopters, jets, cannons, and rockets which targets to hit and when during large firefights.

They support other US military branches as well as foreign militaries, so they have to train for many different operations and be able to keep up with everyone from Army Special Forces to British Commandos to the Iraqi Army.

Air Force

Combat Controllers

Combat controllers, like ANGLICO Marines, support all the other branches and have to be able to keep up with all special operators.

They deploy forward, whether in support of another mission or on their own, and take over control of air traffic in an area. They direct flight paths for different classes of planes and helicopters to ensure all aircraft attacking an objective can fly safely. They target artillery and rocket attacks. In peacetime missions, they can set up air traffic control in areas where it’s needed.

Pararescuemen (PJ)

Pararescuemen are some of the world’s best search-and-rescue experts.

They move forward into areas where a plane has crashed or there is a risk of planes being shot down. Once a plane has hit the ground, they search for the pilots and crew and attempt to recover them. In addition, they perform medical evacuations of injured personnel and civilians.

To reach downed crews, they train extensively in deploying from helicopters and planes. In order to save injured personnel after recovery, they become medical experts, especially in trauma care.

Coast Guard

Maritime Security Response Team

The MSRT focuses on counterterrorism and law enforcement against well-armed adversaries. They are like a SWAT team that can deal with chemical, biological, and nuclear threats on the open water.

Though this list focused on operators who engage in combat with the enemy, there are members of the special operations community who provide support in other ways.

The Army has military information-support operations that seek to spread propaganda and demoralize the enemy, along with civil affairs soldiers who serve as liaisons between the Army and friendly governments. The Air Force has special operations weather technicians who deploy into enemy environments to conduct weather analysis in support of other military operations. The Marine Corps also has the Chemical Biological Incident Response Force, which responds to possible chemical, biological, or nuclear attacks.

SEE ALSO: These were the best military photographs of 2014

Join the conversation about this story »

The US-trained commander of Tajikistan's elite police force has defected to the Islamic State, he said in a YouTube video, and his former unit will issue a statement condemning him, media said on Thursday.

Colonel Gulmurod Khalimov commanded the Central Asian nation's special-purpose police known as OMON, used against criminals and militants. He disappeared in late April, prompting a search by Tajik police.

He reappeared Wednesday, vowing to bring jihad to Russia and the US as he brandished a cartridge belt and sniper rifle, in a professionally made, 10-minute video clip posted in social networks.

"Listen, you dogs, the president and ministers, if only you knew how many boys, our brothers are here, waiting and yearning to return to Tajikistan to reestablish Sharia law there," he said, addressing Tajik President Imomali Rakhmon.

Rakhmon has run Tajikistan, the poorest post-Soviet nation that neighbors Afghanistan, since 1992. He used Russian support to crush Islamist guerrillas in a 1992-1997 civil war and tolerates little dissent in his country of 8 million.

"We are coming to you, God willing, we are coming to you with slaughter," said Khalimov, a 40-year-old native of the Tajik capital Dushanbe. He spoke in Russian, sitting in front of a palm tree, and sported a new beard. It was not clear which country he was in.

Tajik police officials could not be reached for comment. The OMON police plan to issue a statement condemning Khalimov, several officers who had served with him told the Tajik service of the US-funded Radio Liberty.

Khalimov said he had been trained by elite Russian "Spetsnaz" forces in Moscow and US special forces in America.

"Listen, you American pigs, I've been three times to America, and I saw how you train fighters to kill Muslims," he said, patting his rifle. "God willing, I will come with this weapon to your cities, your homes, and we will kill you."

He lambasted Tajiks working in Russia. "You have become the slaves of infidels," he said.

Both Russia and NATO, alarmed by the threat of radical Islam to predominantly Muslim Central Asia, have stepped up military drills with the region's post-Soviet nations.

The International Crisis Group think tank estimates about 4,000 Central Asians fight for Islamic State.

But Khalimov's defection shows that some local security units cannot be trusted if threats can come from insiders, not just insurgents, Kazakhstan-based Central Asia analyst Alexander Knyazev said.

"I think Islamist propaganda will now exploit Khalimov's example in full," he said, warning that volatile neighboring Kyrgyzstan faced similar problems.

(Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Katharine Houreld)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia reveals new high-tech weapon vehicles in a rehearsal for the country's biggest military parade

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - Lawyers for U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the former Taliban prisoner in Afghanistan charged with desertion, sought on Friday to have the general overseeing the military legal proceedings disqualified from the case, citing a conflict of interest.

The motion filed by Bergdahl's attorney Eugene Fidell with a military appeals court argued that General Mark Milley's nomination to serve as the Army's chief of staff could impact the case, especially with Milley needing Senate confirmation to become the service's top officer.

Bergdahl was released in May 2014 in a prisoner swap with the Taliban after five years in captivity.

Many Republican lawmakers condemned the deal the Obama administration reached that brought Bergdahl home, calling it irresponsible. Republicans control the Senate.

Milley is serving as the "convening authority" overseeing the case.

"A convening authority exercises quasi-judicial power," Fidell wrote in his motion filed with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

"Appellant (Bergdahl) has the right to demand that those powers not be exercised by an officer over whom a 'confirmation sword of Damocles' so plainly hangs," the motion said.

Bergdahl was charged in March with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, and could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of the most serious count.

A preliminary hearing is set for September at Fort Sam Houston in Texas.

(Editing by Will Dunham)

SEE ALSO: 'We should be very clear: China is at virtual war with the United States'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what 'Game of Thrones' stars look like in real life

June 14 is the US Army's Birthday. The Army traces its roots to the foundation of the Continental Army which was formed on June 14, 1775, from a combination of state militias.

From this inauspicious start, the US Army has gone on to become the strongest fighting force in the world.

The US Army is the largest of the branches on the United States Armed Forces, and it is responsible for land-based operations. Despite this, the Army still has access to some of the best technology in the world, including planes, helicopters, and mechanized infantry. 

As the US Army withdraws from the War in Afghanistan and funding is cut, the Army is slated to be reduced to its smallest size since before World War II. Despite its smaller nature, the Army will still be ready to deploy wherever it is needed. 

To celebrate America's Army, we've pulled out some of the coolest photos from the archives.

Some of the first pictures of the US Army are of Union soldiers during the Civil War. Here's a photo of soldiers camping along the west bank of the Rappahonnock River at Fredericksburg during the Battle of Chancellorsville.

One of the most famous Army units was Teddy Roosevelt's "Rough Riders." They are pictured here after the Battle of San Juan in 1898.

The army began acquiring fixed-wing aircraft in 1910. This photo shows Army planes flying over Manhattan in 1939.

The US Army is finally set to phase out one of the most consistent images of modern American military power: the Humvee.

Earlier this year, the US Army announced the three finalists for the massive contract to replace the iconic Humvee, which has been in service for almost three decades.

Oshkosh Corporation, defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and Humvee-maker AM General each delivered 22 prototypes of their Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLVT) to military evaluators, who are running elaborate tests on the vehicles to determine the best fit. 

Since the 1990s, AM General's Humvee has been the US military's workhorse, first seeing action in the Gulf War. 

Despite its ubiquity, the Humvee has caused some serious headaches for American forces. As Wired notes, the Humvee was designed in the 1980s as an off-road carrier to transport troops and equipment quickly across Eastern Europe in a theoretical ground war against the then Soviet Union.

But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Humvee's mission changed. It was deployed to the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan, where US commanders quickly discovered that it was dangerously under equipped to protect troops against close-combat urban fire and improvised explosive devices.

With this problem in mind, the vehicles in this summer's competition are all far more resistant to explosive blasts. The new vehicles are smaller, so they can be more easily airlifted and transported. They're also light and better equipped to deal with the urban and off-road patrol duties that the Humvee took on in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

The winning payout for the contract will be huge. As the Dallas Morning News reports, the US Army plans to spend billions on at least 20,000 vehicles, and the Marine Corps will likely buy around 5,000. If the vehicle is more successful, it could be an even greater windfall — since the '80s, the AM General has produced 250,000 Humvees for the US military. 

Here are the three vehicles that could replace the Humvee:

Oshkosh's L-ATV

Oshkosh's entry into the competition is the Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle.

The company has one advantage. After the Army realized in the early 2000s that the Humvee left troops vulnerable to blasts, the Pentagon ordered thousands of Oshkosh's Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the name suggests, Oshkosh's MRAP was much better suited to transport troops through these environments. Wired notes that the MRAP was so successful at sustaining blasts that some troops reportedly didn't realize when they ran over bombs.

Oshkosh's entry in the JLTV contest attempts to expand upon the MRAP's success. The L-ATV is a lighter, smaller vehicle than the MRAP and can be more quickly and easily airlifted. This makes the vehicle preferable to the MRAP, which is large and can't be deployed to areas where it needs to maneuver in crowded spaces. 

Oshkosh believes that since the company demonstrated its proficiency with the MRAP, the JLTV is a natural transition. 

"The Oshkosh M-ATV is the only vehicle performing the JLTV mission profile in operations today," Oshkosh Vice President of Business Development Jennifer Christiansen told Business Insider in an email.

"This is where Oshkosh is truly unique because no other company has successfully transitioned more new military vehicle programs into production for the US Department of Defense," Christiansen said. 

The vehicle also has some unique features. If the military wishes to make their vehicles a little greener, Oshkosh threw an optional hybrid-diesel engine into the mix to help increase fuel efficiency.

Lockheed Martin's JLTV

Designed with anti-guerilla combat in mind, Lockheed is playing on somewhat unfamiliar ground in the ground fight. Oshkosh and AM General both have troop carriers in use by the US military, while Lockheed is still more widely known for its high-tech aircraft and missile systems.

Like the other competitors, Lockheed aimed to make its slightly boxier vehicle lighter and tested it for blast-resistance. 

"It can take a soldier everywhere, but can survive everything that they could survive in an MRAP," Trevor McWilliams, a former soldier whose truck was hit with an IED, said in a Lockheed promotional video.

Lockheed is also hoping that the vehicle's price tag will persuade the military to adopt its proposal. The defense contractor's website touts the vehicle's gas mileage, low production cost, and easy adaptability in case mechanics want to add on or upgrade the car in the shop.

"We are providing the most capable vehicle to our soldiers and our marines, and we're going to do it a very affordable cost," Lockheed Martin program director Katheryn Hasse told Army Recognition in 2014.

AM General's BRV-O

Though the Humvee itself may be on the way out, the lessons it learned have been passed on to AM General's 21st century version. 

This time around, AM General has built the Humvee's largest weakness into the vehicle's name: the Blast-Resistant Vehicle Off-Road. The company is highlighting the renewed safety of their BRV-O, touting its blast-resistant frame and space for amour add-ons.

"The Humvee was not designed for underbody protection, so the BRV-O has a higher ground clearance and is able to apply a protection kit to the bottom of the vehicle," AM General Vice President of Business Development Chris Vanslanger told CNN in 2012.

According to AM General, the BRV-O is also the only vehicle equipped with a system that allows all passengers to connect to the military's C4ISR network, which helps troops, aircraft, and commanders link up and coordinate movements on the battlefield.

Join the conversation about this story »

SEE ALSO: Wal-Mart CEO reveals where American consumers are spending their money

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 6 scientifically proven features men find attractive in women

RICHMOND, Va. (Reuters) - A state board revoked the license of a former U.S. Army doctor on Friday, finding that he plied students with hypnotic drugs during battlefield-trauma training and performed dangerous procedures, including intentionally inducing shock.

The doctor, John Henry Hagmann, was cited for training he provided in 2012 and 2013 in Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and Great Britain.

Students testified on Friday that Hagmann also performed penile nerve blocks and instructed them to insert catheters into one another's genitals.

"The evidence is so overwhelming and so bizarre as to almost shock the conscience of a prosecutor who's been doing this for 26 years," Assistant Attorney General Frank Pedrotty told the Virginia Board of Medicine.

Two students provided the board with pictures of chest scars they received when procedures went awry. Three students testified that others became violently ill or began hallucinating after Hagmann gave them ketamine.

"What we're seeing is way off the charts," said board chair Kevin O'Connor. "Quite honestly, I'm speechless." 

Hagmann, who did not appear at Friday's hearing, has told Reuters that he did nothing wrong. Hagmann can appeal but could not be reached for comment afterward.

"This is so abhorrent and abnormal," testified John Prescott, chief academic officer, Association of American Medical Colleges. "In a combat setting, I have a hard time – I mean, there's no indication you would ever need a penile block, ever."

Reuters reported on Wednesday that military officials had long known about Hagmann's methods. A four-star general briefly halted them in 2005, but the doctor resumed his government contracts, earning at least $10.5 million since then.

Two male students testified on Friday about private rectal exams. One said that he gave Hagmann an exam that the doctor filmed. The other described regret that he allowed Hagmann to perform a rectal exam on him.

"I can't imagine a worse violation of trust," said the student, whose name, like other trainees who testified, was shielded from the public. "There's no excuse for the way this course was run."

Colonel Neil Page, who investigated the matter for the Uniformed Service University for the Health Sciences, the military medical school, testified that Hagmann's defense that the students volunteered for procedures is irrelevant because they were intoxicated.

"There was a line that was crossed," Page said. 

(Editing by Sandra Maler)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This new 'smart Band-Aid' could drastically change the way doctors treat patients

Analysis

The world in which Florentine statesman Niccolo Machiavelli lived scarcely resembles our own. City-states have been replaced with nation-states.

Empires have collapsed, never to be rebuilt. And modern warfare is waged with weapons and tactics the likes of which he could have never imagined.

Yet similarities remain.

Although he died nearly 500 years ago today, Machiavelli would be able to navigate our politics as deftly as he navigated his, because the principles that govern them remain much the same.

At the time of his death, Machiavelli was well known in northern Italy for his service as a politician and diplomat in Republican Florence from 1498 to 1512 and as a writer of Commedia Erudita, or "learned comedy" plays. He was less well known for two works that now define his legacy: The Prince, first distributed under the title On Principalities in 1513 but not officially published until five years after his death in 1527, and Discourses on Livy, written in 1517 but published posthumously in 1531.

Thomas Cromwell, the legal mastermind behind the English Reformation, is said to have admired Machiavelli, and Henry VIII and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V both owned copies of The Prince. But at the time of Machiavelli's death, few people, if any, recognized in his thought and actions the start of a new, radically modern epoch in politics.

Machiavelli's legacy has since grown to colossal proportions. He is credited with introducing the difference between public and private virtue — between the principles that govern personal morality in friendship, family and business, and the moral logic that guides the politician or statesman.

In doing so, as political philosopher Leo Strauss observed, Machiavelli broke from politics as understood by "the Ancients" as the pursuit of a unified public and private "good life" and gave us the notion that politicians can and should operate according to the demands of the state as an entity independent from civil society and its moral imperatives.

He understood that in private morality, where a person's integrity is at stake, the means matter as much, if not more than, the ends. But in public morality, where the power and prosperity of states are at stake, the ends are fundamental even if they do not entirely justify the means.

A leader who embraces personal moral imperfection to protect their realm is, in this sense, more virtuous than a ruler who, in their pursuit of moral perfection, fails to consolidate their power, make critical if unsavory alliances and secure, through violence if necessary, that which ensures the survival of their realm. 

Of course, Machiavelli was not the first to submit that statesmen play by different rules than private individuals. But he was the first to argue persuasively that these rules constitute a morality every bit as legitimate as that of everyday life.

The persuasiveness of his case rests not in its philosophical expansiveness — unlike most philosophical discourse, his writing draws heavily on aphorism and anecdote — but in its relation to the world — his world. Machiavelli wrote from life, and his writing has shaped the way generations of political leaders, philosophers and publics understand politics.

Just as important, it also shaped the way politicians and statesmen practice politics. Grasping Machiavelli's legacy thus requires that we look not only at what he wrote but also the world in which his work was written, for it was in that world that the modern state was given birth.

Blueprints for the State

In 1453, two events utterly transformed the world in which Machiavelli himself would soon be born. That year, the armies of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, armed with a 17-foot long, 37,000-pound cannon, burst through the great walls of Constantinople.

Once inside, they laid waste to the Byzantine Empire, sounding a death knell for the siege-based warfare that had characterized Medieval Europe and, more broadly, for the feudal social and political orders it supported.

Mehmed's invasion also sent a wave of scholars and artisans, many of them Greek, from the eastern Mediterranean to Italy. By the time of Machiavelli's birth in 1469, these immigrants were well on their way to planting the seeds for what would become the Italian Renaissance.

1453 also marked the end of the Hundred Years' War, a series of conflicts that involved more than a dozen belligerents but centered on the relationship between England and France.

By clarifying territorial boundaries between the two realms, and thus constituting each as a distinct territorial entity, the Hundred Years' War laid the basis for what would become French and English national identities — and in turn, for the nation as a model and tool of social, political, economic and military mobilization.

The Hundred Years' War also generated a variety of innovations in military technologies and tactics, such as the longbow, small gunpowder firearms and the wrought-iron cannon, the replacement of heavily armored knights with lightly armored cavalry and infantryman, and the formation of the first standing army since the Roman Empire.

The wakes of these two epochal events converged on Machiavelli's world in 1494, with France's invasion of the Italian peninsula. In the 1490s, French King Charles VIII replaced the heavy but cheaper wrought-iron cannon of the Hundred Years' War period with a much lighter and more mobile bronze-cast cannon.

With this new artillery, and drawing on the human and other resources that came with French territorial consolidation after the Hundred Years' War, Charles overwhelmed Italy. Wealthy but diminutive city-states like Florence were no match for Charles' army.

They relied for protection on a technology that his cannon had rendered obsolete — the fortified wall — and on mercenary forces that had little incentive to die in the sorts of decisive field battles that Charles' artillery and larger armies necessitated.

In 1498, Charles died. That same year, Machiavelli was appointed secretary of the Second Chancery of Florence and shortly thereafter was made one of Florence's top diplomats. In 1499, Charles' successor, Louis XII, started the Second Italian War, which would last until 1504.

Against a backdrop of internecine warfare and ever-shifting alliances, Machiavelli spent the first decade of the 16th century leading diplomatic missions, attempting to institutionalize Florentine relations with other realms and managing the city's militia, which he helped transform from a largely mercenary-based force into an army staffed increasingly of citizens.

He also proposed a number of reforms that later, after the Medicis' return to power forced him from office in 1512, made their way into The Prince. Of these policies, the most famous relate to Machiavelli's justification of deceit when acting on behalf of the state. But his most important recommendations are those pertaining to the nature, function and organization of the state itself.

As constitutional scholar Philip Bobbitt describes in The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, Machiavelli saw that changes in the strategic environment of his time — the introduction of new kinds of weapons, the raising of larger armies, the retreat of the moral and political authority of the Roman Catholic Church in the face of the Renaissance — demanded changes to the constitutional order and institutional infrastructure of the state.

It demanded a shift from loosely organized and weakly institutionalized realms to states capable of harnessing, organizing and deploying resources on a grand scale.

And it demanded that the legitimacy of the state be grounded not in dynastic claims or appeals to an increasingly delegitimized Roman Catholic Church but in an ability to maintain stable relations with other states and to protect its society against them.

We can see in Machiavelli's ideas a blueprint for the kinds of centralized states that would dominate Europe in the 17th century: the France of Cardinal Richelieu and Louis XIV; the Prussia of Frederick William; the Sweden of Gustavus Adolphus. We can also see the derivatives of those states in the industrial age: the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the United States under Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt.

The ideas that helped to create this world — and the ideas that continue to dictate how its political agents operate — were not the product of Machiavelli's imagination. They were the product of action and observation in a world of states being remade from within and without by new kinds warfare, diplomacy and social organization.

A Lasting Impression

Machiavelli's writings are as applicable now, almost five centuries after his death, as they were in his life. The modern world abounds in examples of states in the throes of change — change triggered by evolutions in their strategic environment and in the technologies by which they relate to society and to each other, a dynamic Machiavelli was the first to identify explicitly.

Japan exemplifies these Machiavellian principles particularly well. The country has responded to China's economic rise and the United States' newfound reliance on regional allies by strengthening its military and reforming its domestic institutions to revive its economy.

Likewise, China has expanded militarily and economically in part to procure desperately needed resources, even as it attempts to centralize and streamline its political institutions to better manage the difficult times ahead.

Europe, Russia, the United States and many others are, in their own way and at their own pace, being constantly and similarly remade by the intersection of external pressures and internal needs. 

Machiavelli taught the world to think of the state as something distinct and independent from civil society, operating by its own moral logic. In the hands of state-builders like Richelieu and Otto von Bismarck, this idea transformed the way human societies relate to the natural world and to each other.

There is virtually no aspect of our world that states do not touch, and thus in which Machiavelli's impression cannot be seen. And since the state, whichever form it takes, will dominate international politics for the foreseeable future, that impression will remain for generations to come.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Putin: We Have The Best Army In The World

The military has very talented photographers in its ranks, and they constantly attempt to capture what life as a service member is like during training and at war.

This is the best of what they shot during a single week in mid-June.

Air Force:

Airmen push down on the wing of a U-2 after its landing at Royal Air Force Fairford, England, on June 9, 2015. If the aircraft lands slightly off balance, it has the potential to tilt to one side.

SEE ALSO: Russia is deploying advanced aerial weapon systems to the Arctic

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia reveals new high-tech weapon vehicles in a rehearsal for the country's biggest military parade

The killing of nine people at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, last Wednesday has ignited a nationwide debate over the Confederate flag.

But in New York, one of the country's largest and most racially diverse cities, a street honoring the general who led the Confederate army has gone largely unnoticed.

A website linked to Dylann Roof, the alleged Charleston church shooter, featured a virulently racist manifesto and several photos that seem to show him posing with the flag. Roof's apparent attachment to the Confederate emblem prompted calls for the flag to be removed from South Carolina's state capitol, where it had flown since 1961.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) responded on Monday by calling for the flag to be taken down in South Carolina. However, the Confederacy is still commemorated on the flags in multiple other southern states. It's also honored at an Army base in a very northern locale — Brooklyn, New York.

The central street at Fort Hamilton, New York City's only US Army base, is General Lee Avenue. It runs for about a half mile in the borough of Brooklyn.

General Lee Avenue is named after Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate forces. Before he joined the secessionist South, Lee served as the base's engineer. Along with General Lee Avenue, the base features a plaque commemorating the home in which the future Confederate leader lived while he was at Fort Hamilton, 1841-46.

Business Insider contacted Fort Hamilton on Monday. A spokesperson declined to comment on whether it had received requests to change the street name. They noted it is landmarked federal property and therefore outside of local jurisdiction.

We also reached out to several officials including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) and Rep. Dan Donovan (R-New York), whose district includes the base, to see if they would comment on the street name. Neither de Blasio nor Donovan has responded to these requests.

Fort Hamilton isn't the only military base that honors Confederate leaders. There are at least 10 bases where the entire facility is named for a general from the losing side in the US Civil War.

These Confederate names are relics from reconciliation efforts undertaken in the years after conclusion of post-Civil War Reconstruction. During this time, officials promoted a narrative of moral equality between the war's combatants that made it possible to honor leaders who fought American troops on US bases.

Here are photos showing Lee's house and the General Lee Avenue sign from inside Fort Hamilton that Business Insider's Jeremy Bender took last summer:

According to the website of the Harbor Defense Museum at Fort Hamilton, Lee "devised a plan to improve the waterproofing of the casements in the fort" while serving as engineer.

Lee was never the commander of the base, but he is almost certainly the most significant person with a connection to it. According to David Eicher's biography of Lee, the slow pace of life at Fort Hamilton discouraged the future Confederate leader, whose tasks were limited to peacetime maintenance and upgrades.

"I am very solitary, and my only company is my dogs and cats," Lee wrote to his wife in 1846, according to Eicher.

Lee served as a vestryman with the base's parish church. His career at the base ended that year, when he was dispatched at the outbreak of the Mexican-American war.

Lee later served as commandant of West Point, where there's a cadet barracks named after him.

An American nuclear-power ballistic-missile submarine named after Lee was decommissioned in 1983.

But the most prominent commemoration of Lee on federal property is the general's mansion overlooking the Potomac River on the grounds of Arlington National Cemetery. The house was designated a "permanent memorial" to Lee by congressional action in 1955, with the Congress citing his purported "desire and hope ... for peace and unity within our nation."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A Southerner Learns How To Lose His Accent

June 19, 1942, is not a familiar date to most. But members of the Army’s elite 75th Ranger Regiment know it well. It’s the date of activation of the 1st Ranger Battalion, under the command of Lt. Col. William Darby.

Colloquially known as “Darby’s Rangers,” 1st Battalion and several subsequent Ranger battalions formed during World War II represented the genesis of the modern Ranger role of performing large-scale objective raids and direct-action missions.

The 1st Ranger Battalion was created in order to address a daunting problem faced in 1942 by Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall: The American troops fighting in Europe had no combat experience. Marshall needed a force extender — a method to gain combat experience early in the war and disseminate that expertise to other units.

He looked to the British for inspiration. They had developed the legendary Commando units, designed to strike back early in the war and gather intelligence on German forces. The American equivalent would have a similar mission, but would not be a permanent formation.

As author Ross Hall relates in his comprehensive history of the Rangers, The Ranger Book, this was done to “mollify stubborn commanders when they figured they would get their soldiers back with a lot more education.” Darby was selected to head this new special unit named after a particularly elite group of soldiers from the early day of the American colonies: Rangers. On June 19, 1942, the 1st Ranger Battalion was activated. 

As Darby’s Rangers trained with Commando teachers in Scotland, separate Ranger training facilities were being established back in the United States. Aside from a few Rangers who participated in the Dieppe raid in August 1942, as detailed by James DeFelice, Darby’s 1st Ranger Battalion would not face its first action until North Africa.

The Ranger involvement in Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of the North African coast, provided the first indication that American military commanders did not fully understand or grasp the capabilities that Darby’s unit provided. After the Torch landings, no suitable Ranger missions presented themselves.

As Hall explains, American commanders had little clue on how to employ the new unit. “In fact, the whole concept of raiding Rangers, a quick-strike force without heavy weapons, was so new that most of the field commanders had little knowledge of how to use them properly. In many cases they were fed into the mill, and did so well they kept being sent back,” Hall writes. The beginning of this meat-grinder mentality foreshadowed eventual tragedy.

The Allied advance on Tunisia would finally give the Rangers a raid objective: Sened Station, guarded by elite elements of the Italian army. 

According to Darby’s own account — which he shared with West Point classmate William Baumer for a book eventually published in 1980 — the raid’s objective was to gather intelligence, shake up the Italian forces, and convince the Germans and Italians a much larger force was operating in the area. The hope was that the Germans troops would divert their reserve forces away from the Allies’ planned advance.

Inserted by trucks, the 500 Rangers marched 12 miles to the station and spent the day observing Italian movements until they began their night attack. Rangers advanced in a skirmish line and infiltrated within 200 yards of enemy positions until they were compromised. They then swept through the camp while mortar teams blasted the rear of the Italian elements, killing at least 75 while only suffering one killed and 20 wounded, according to Hall. The Sened Station raid was a textbook demonstration of Ranger capabilities.

After Sened, the Rangers participated in a few more operations as rearguards or supporting elements, then moved back to train in Algeria, with the newly formed 3rd and 4th Ranger Battalions (the 2nd and 5th Ranger Battalions were being stood up separately in training camps back in the United States). These new battalions, as well as the original, would help lead the way in the Sicily landings. First, 3rd and 4th Battalions all operated essentially as elite infantry in the Sicily campaign.

According to Hall, many commanders simply continue to send to Rangers into regular infantry roles because they were generally successful: “The ability for Rangers to fight well under any circumstances made it easy for commanders to use them at the front, especially since seasoned troops were getting hard to come by. The Rangers were too good to be left idle.”

The Ranger battalions operated under conventional infantry commands, continuing the trend of Rangers being used contrary to their original purpose as an independent raid force. This would have tragic consequences as Darby’s Rangers moved on to Italy.

In 1944, after the Anzio landings on the Italian coast, the 1st and 3rd battalions, with support from the 4th, were tasked with taking the town of Cisterna, a few miles from Allied lines. The town was supposed to be only moderately defended. That intelligence was wrong; Cisterna was actually an assembly area for the German line, with dug-in defenders including elements of the vaunted Hermann Göring division.

Hall describes the German force in Cisterna as “men with plenty of experience and plenty of ammunition.” The 1st and 3rd tried to fight through the city, but they had little chance against what was later estimated to a 12,000-strong enemy force. The 4th attempted a rescue, but could not break through.

Of the 767 Rangers in the 1st and 3rd battalions, only six came back; the rest were killed or captured. Most of the original Darby’s Rangers were finished.

The Cisterna debacle is emblematic of the problems faced by the Rangers and other special operations units during the war. There was no command to delineate these units to missions and objective that took advantage of their capabilities.

The conventional headquarters that oversaw them did not understood the role of special operations, and simply treated them as an infantry unit with a higher level of training. The disaster at Cisterna was simply the culmination of this pattern of misuse, reinforced by the Rangers’ previous successes in battle.

The surviving 4th Ranger Battalion was attached to the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment along the stalled front in Italy, where they held the line against German probing attacks. As Hall notes, the Rangers blunted these attacks with minimal losses: “Supposed to be ‘in reserve’ and ‘on the line’ simultaneously, the Rangers held for 52 days against heavy attacks with a loss of just eight men. During the same time, the Paratroopers were often losing a like amount— per day.”

While Darby’s Rangers were fighting in the Mediterranean, three more Ranger battalions were being formed and training back in the United States. The 2nd and 5th Ranger battalions were tasked with supporting the Normandy landings; mixed elements of the 2nd and 5th landed at Omaha beach (where the famous Ranger motto, “Rangers Lead the Way,” was born), while the rest of the 2nd landed at the sheer cliffs of nearby Pointe du Hoc.

The 2nd’s task was to destroy several 155mm coastal guns that threatened the landings at Omaha on D-Day. The Pointe mission was a clear Ranger mission; the forbidding cliff face required their specialized training in order to scale the Pointe and destroy the guns.

Upon the landing, the Rangers of 2nd Battalion discovered that the guns were gone, wooden dummies in their place. Despite this setback, they were able to locate the guns nearby and destroy them. Pointe du Hoc remains the one of most iconic European theater battles of the war, immortalized in films like “Saving Private Ryan” and videogames like “Call of Duty.”

Other Ranger units would be stood up to fight in the Pacific; the 6th Ranger Battalion conducted the famous POW rescue at Cabanatuan in the Philippines. But it was Darby’s Rangers, the 1st Ranger Battalion, who created the model for an independent, direct-action unit.

While the 75th Ranger Regiment would not become a unit until 1986, there were Ranger-style units in both Korea and Vietnam, and in 1974, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Ranger battalions were reconstituted.

The mission of the modern Ranger has evolved in scope and technology, but the spirit is the same: When there’s a objective raid to be done, Rangers lead the way.

SEE ALSO: The Kremlin wants Texas to secede from the US

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An Abandoned Red Army Base In Hungary May Have Once Stockpiled Nukes

Both of these statements are true:

1. China possesses a rapidly improving military that, in certain local or regional engagements, could match — and even defeat — U.S. forces in battle.

2. In military terms, China is a paper dragon that, despite its apparent strength, is powerless to intervene in world events far from its shores.

Seeing the distinction between these two ideas is the key to understanding China’s strategic aims, its military means and the threat, if any, that the country poses to its neighbors, the United States and the existing world order.

Beijing’s goals include “securing China’s status as a great power and, ultimately, reacquiring regional preeminence,” according to the 2015 edition of the U.S. Defense Department’s annual report on Chinese military power.

China is not a global military power. In fact, right now it doesn’t even want to be one.

But that doesn’t mean the world’s most populous country doesn’t pose a threat to the planet’s wealthiest and most powerful one. Yes, the United States and China are at odds, mostly as a result of China’s expanding definition of what comprises its territory in the western Pacific, and how that expansion threatens U.S. allies and the postwar economic order Washington was instrumental in creating.

China, however, still could not meet and match the U.S. military on a global battlefront. Beijing lacks the expertise, military doctrine and equipment to do so. The Chinese military has no recent combat experience and, as a consequence, its training regimens are unrealistic.

Beijing’s army, navy and air force may be flush with new equipment, but much of it is based on designs that Chinese government hackers and agents stole from the United States and other countries. Most of it has never been exposed to the rigors of actual combat, so it’s unclear how well it would actually work.

But that might not matter. China has no interest in deploying and fighting across the globe, as the United States does. Beijing is preparing to fight along its own borders and especially in the China seas, a far easier task for its inexperienced troops.

Because, with all its military handicaps, in its own region China could be capable of beating U.S. forces in battle.

The critical question is just how much the Pentagon should care.

Active defense

The brutal Japanese invasion and occupation of China during the 1930s and 1940s had a profound effect on modern China’s development. Prior to the mid-1980s, China’s military strategy was focused on one great fear — another invasion, in this case an overland attack by the Soviet Union.

Commensurate with the threat, Beijing’s military organization emphasized short-range, defensive ground forces. In essence, a Great Wall of men and metal.

The danger from the Soviet Union ebbed and, in 1985, the Chinese Communist Party revised its war strategy. The “active defense” doctrine sought to move the fighting away from the Chinese heartland. It shifted attention from China’s western land border to its eastern sea frontier — including Taiwan, which in the eyes of Beijing’s ruling Communist Party is a breakaway province.

But the new strategy was still largely defensive. “We attack only after being attacked,” the Chinese navy asserted in its contribution to the official active-defense doctrine. It’s worth noting that, in the party’s view, a formal announcement of full independence by Taiwan would be an “attack” on China’s integrity, justifying a retaliatory attack on the island nation.

Thirty years later, Beijing is still pursuing its offshore defense, if at a greater distance. It now encompasses island territory that China dared not actively claim until recently. Still, the strategy remains the same.

Which is why, for all the hundreds of billions of dollars Beijing has spent on its armed forces since the Chinese economy really took off in the late 1990s and 2000s — and even taking into account equipment optimized for an amphibious assault on Taiwan — Beijing still acquires mostly short-range, defensive weaponry.

Which is how China can possess the world’s second-biggest fleet of jet fighters after the United States — 1,500 jets versus Washington’s 2,800 — but only a mere handful of the aerial tankers that refuel fighters in mid-air, allowing them to fight battles far from their bases.

The U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps together operate more than 500 tankers. Because America fights all over the world.

Similarly, China’s navy is huge. With some 300 warships, it is second in strength only to the 500 vessels in service with the U.S. Navy and Military Sealift Command, which operates America’s transport and spy ships. But the Chinese navy, like its air force, is a short-range force. Beijing’s fleet includes just six logistics ships capable of refueling and resupplying other ships at sea, extending their sailing range.

America’s fleet includes more than 30 such vessels.

The upshot of Beijing’s emphasis on short-range forces is that the farther its troops fight from the Chinese mainland, the less effective they will be. It doesn’t help that Beijing has few close allies, which means virtually no overseas bases it can count on during conflicts. The Pentagon, by contrast, maintains many hundreds of overseas facilities.

Chinese forces simply cannot cross the ocean to confront the U.S. military in America’s own backyard. Nor does Beijing even want to do so. Meanwhile, U.S. forces routinely patrol within miles of China’s airspace and national waters, and Washington has taken it on itself to be the decisive if not dominant military power on every continent.

In the western Pacific, however, China does threaten U.S. military standing. The flipside of possessing a defensive, short-range navy and air force is that Beijing can quickly concentrate numerous forces across a relatively small geographic area. The large numbers help China compensate for the overall poor quality of its forces.

By contrast, the United States — because it must project forces over great distances and usually is in the process of doing so all around the world — can usually deploy only a small number of ships and planes to any particular place at any given time. Because they would be badly outnumbered, it might not matter that U.S. ships and planes are generally superior to their Chinese counterparts in a one-on-one fight.

In a landmark analysis in 2008, the RAND Corporation, a California think tank, concluded that China would have a huge numerical advantage over the United States in any aerial battle near Taiwan. The size of the advantage would depend on whether U.S. forces staged from Kadena Air Base in Japan or Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. “China could enjoy a 3:1 edge in fighters if we can fly from Kadena,” the analysis warned, “about 10:1 if forced to operate from Andersen.” The report goes on to note that while American warplanes are generally technologically superior to their Chinese counterparts, they’re not 10 times superior.

Second island chain

But if China’s strategy is defensive, this argument goes, then the United States would only risk defeat in battle with the Chinese if Washington attacked first. And America wouldn’t ever attack China, right?

The depends on the definition of “attack.” Assault the Chinese mainland? Most certainly not. But the United States and most other countries equate an attack on their interests with an attack on their soil. And increasingly, China is expanding the definition of its interests and the extent of its soil.

For one, if Taiwan ever formally announced its independence — and make no mistake, Taiwan is already fully independent — China vows it would invade. Because the integrity of historical China, including the island of Formosa that became Taiwan in 1949, is firmly within China’s current definition of its core interests.

China also claims islands in the East and South China seas that Taiwan, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei are claiming. The islands themselves are essentially beside the point; it’s the waters around them, and the oil and natural gas below that the countries are so eager to secure for themselves.

Though those disputes are not new, as China’s economy and military have developed, its claims have grown more assertive. In late 2014, China greatly escalated these territorial disputes when it began dredging isolated reefs in contested waters, piling sand into artificial islands, atop which it built piers, airstrips and other military facilities, transforming the islands into outposts.

The outposts make it increasingly unlikely the claimant countries will find easy, peaceful solutions to their conflicts.

The United States maintains military alliances with Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan and, to a lesser extent, Vietnam. Washington is also committed to maintaining freedom of navigation for commercial ships in international waters — a key factor of global free trade. If any of the above countries goes to war with China, the United States could get drawn in, too. And on China’s turf, where Beijing’s short-range forces are most useful.

Fighting in its own region, China is a military power to be reckoned with. Fighting far from home against U.S. troops, the Chinese would be hopelessly outmatched, assuming they could even reach the battlefield.

The trick for the United States is to avoid going to war with China on China’s terms without also surrendering the western Pacific to Chinese control. That means talk — backed up by the threat of force. “The United States seeks to develop a constructive relationship with China,” the Pentagon states in its China report, “that promotes security and prosperity in Asia and around the world.”

The report continues: “At the same time, the strategy acknowledges there will be areas of competition, and underscores that the United States will manage this competition with China from a position of strength.”

But there’s a bluff in this approach. In the only region where China’s actions pose a serious threat to U.S. interests, Washington struggles to maintain a position of strength. Beijing has carefully matched clear and restrained strategic goals with more than adequate military means.

That’s a powerful combination.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 6 scientifically proven features men find attractive in women

The Rev. Al Sharpton's civil rights group, the National Action Network, wants the US military to rename all of its facilities that honor Confederate Army figures including a street named for Robert E. Lee on Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, New York.

Sharpton will be holding a vigil in front of Fort Hamilton on Saturday. Ahead of that event, Minister Kirsten John Foy, the National Action Network's northeast regional director, held a press conference in front of the base on Thursday.

Foy said it is "unacceptable" that the main street running through the base is named "General Lee Avenue." He noted Fort Hamilton's slogan dubs the base the "face of the United States Army in New York."

"Fort Hamilton is the face of the US Army here in New York and the face of the US Army here in New York is General Robert E. Lee," said Foy. "That is unacceptable as a New Yorker, as an American, and as a person of good conscience."

Business Insider highlighted the existence of General Lee Avenue on Monday. The street is about a half mile long and is the main street on the base. Lee served at Fort Hamilton in the 19th century before he left the US Army. He went on to lead the Confederate troops during the Civil War.

The June 17 shooting at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina that left nine people dead has reignited a nationwide debate over Confederate symbols on public lands. Dylann Roof, the alleged shooter, has been linked to a website that featured a racist manifesto and photos of him posing with Confederate imagery. 

In addition to calling for General Lee Avenue to be renamed, Foy said the National Action Network is pushing for the military to renamed all of its other bases that honor Confederate figures. There are at least ten bases named for Confederate leaders. Military bases are on federally owned land that is outside of local jurisdiction.

"We will be presenting an official letter to the commander of this base and then sending it up the chain asking that they remove all the remnants of the Confederacy," Foy said. "Taxpayer dollars are supporting a US military that honors the Confederacy."

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), who represents a congressional district adjacent to the base has also called for General Lee Avenue to be renamed. However, Rep. Dan Donovan (R-New York) has not responded to requests for comment from Business Insider about the issue. 

Foy said Donovan's silence was "deafening." However, Foy said it is not surprising Donovan has not weighed in given his role in the Eric Garner case. Donovan was elected to Congress earlier this year. Prior to that, he was the district attorney in Staten Island. Donovan was widely criticized for declining to indict the police officers who were involved in Garner's death. The decision not to indict the officers led to nationwide protests. 

"The silence is deafening, but not surprising," Foy said. "This is the same individual who didn't think Eric Garner deserved justice."

Along with changing military facilities named for Confederate figures, Foy said National Action Network hopes to begin a "debate" about a mural in the New York State Capitol Building in Albany that includes a Confederate flag.

"We're not equating this painting with the Confederate flag that's represented in some of the Southern states in their flags and on their public lands," Foy explained. "But we are saying that this rises to the occasion of a robust public debate. Does this flag belong in our state capitol here in the state of New York?"

The mural, which depicts wars New York has been involved in, includes a flag with the Confederate stars and bars that is encircled by a wreath. Foy said the presence of the wreath means the Confederate flag is being "memorialized" on the mural.  

After Foy's remarks, a reporter asked whether the fight over Confederate symbols and names might be distracting from more pressing civil rights issues.

"We can walk and chew gum at the same time," Foy said. We can fight injustices on all fronts. We have to fight this battle from top to bottom, legislatively and symbolically."

The Army has released statements indicating it has no intention of changing any base names. Business Insider asked Foy whether National Action Network would push President Barack Obama or any of the 2016 candidates to take action to rename the bases.

"We've got to look for the future. The president has done a yeoman's job in moving the US military into the 21st century," Foy said. He can't do it all in eight years. There is another president on the way and, whoever the president is, they've got to make it known to us what their position is on the state of the Confederacy in 2015."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 mindblowing facts about North Korea

As docs, all of us spend a lot of time training people how to do this basic medical stuff themselves.  We do this for several reasons.

First, remember Combat Medicine Axiom #1: We may be busy looking for work and pulling triggers. 

Second, you guys are gonna have to do your best to stay in the fight, so do as much as you can on your own. 

Finally, the current conflicts have shown that in some cases docs are the first ones the bad guys aim for. 

If you are the main med guy, don’t advertise it.

Since 85% or more of preventable deaths on the battlefield are due to hemorrhage you absolutely must know how to stop bleeding (knowledge and skill, not just gear).

Every drop of blood you keep in your body equals time. The faster you lose blood, the sooner you die.  You need to buy time by stopping the bleeding.

The best treatment for bleeding is direct pressure on the wound.  The best direct pressure is focused pressure on the blood vessel that is leaking.  As a student, my finger was frequently scrubbed into the operating field while the surgeon got ready to sew. 

Your gloved palm or fist jammed in the wound is a good place to start.  Just be aware your casualty may try to kick your ass or shoot you if you cause them pain.

If you follow AXIOM #1, it may be your knee in your buddies wound while you return fire.  Get creative at combining fire superiority with well-timed medicine. 

Once you get to cover (get off the X), pack the wound full of gauze.  Use a hemostatic gauze if you can get it (future post) and apply a pressure dressing (future post) or a wound seal (future post) to maintain that pressure. The pressure dressing frees up your hands to look for work.

As far as which hemostatic agent to choose, stick to the gauze type, either roll or z-folded, and make sure you have at least enough to cover the base of the wound.  Most come in 1 yard or 4 yard long strips. 

Most US troops carry either Combat Gauze from Z-medica or Chitogauze from HemCon. 

Allied teams often have these or Celox.  From a comparative standpoint they are all roughly the same.  Just stay away from powders and gels since they may not be the latest generation products.  Just keep in mind that most SOF medical innovation is happening at the system and hospital levels.  For the average Joe the best first aid hasn’t significantly changed since Napoleon’s day.

SEE ALSO: This Afghan soldier who singlehandedly brought down 6 gunmen in parliament reflects the country's need for heroes

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 game-changing military planes from the last 15 years

Since 2009, $287 million has been spent on programs aimed at improving morale within the US military, which has shouldered two major overseas combat deployments over the past decade.

But these efforts may have been largely fruitless, as 52% of soldiers across all branches remain "pessimistic about their future in the military," according to an April USA Today report.

For decades, analysts have consistently reported on supposedly declining US military morale, even before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A Brookings Institution report notes: "Observers regularly fretted over low morale during the defense drawdown of the 1990s, during the start of the Iraq War, during the Iraq Surge, during the Afghanistan Surge; and at practically all the points in between ... After each report of troop morale hitting 'rock bottom,' troop morale seems to slip lower yet and, still, the military soldiers on."

In the past, flagging morale may have been attributable to factors like repeated Iraq or Afghanistan deployments.

But a 2014 Military Times study suggests a financial cause for flagging morale: "In 2009, 87 percent of active-duty troops who participated in Military Times' survey rated their pay and allowances 'good' or 'excellent,'" the newspaper reported. "This year, the figure was just 44 percent."

The US government increased military pay just 1 percent in 2014, the smallest hike in 41 years and down from a 3.9 percent raise in 2009 and a 6.9 percent jump in 2002, according to the Military Times.

Few of the soldiers polled believed their situation would improve: 70 percent of those Military Times surveyed said that they expected quality of life under military employment to decrease further in the future. 

Pay and benefits aren't the only cause of pessimism in the ranks. Some in the military worry that the the armed forces aren't being adequately led into the future, and declining morale could signal a general lack of confidence in the military's leadership.

 MSNBC reports that in 2011 "only 26 percent of Army leaders who participated agreed with the statement that the Army 'is headed in the right direction to prepare for the challenges of the next 10 years.'"

According to the Military Times, only 27 percent of soldiers thought that leadership had their best interests at heart.

President Obama is unpopular with the armed forces as well, though some of his administration's policies have gained support over the years.

A separate Military Times poll found Obama's popularity at a dismal 15 percent among soldiers in 2014. Morale is bound to decline if soldiers don't believe in their commander-in-chief.

But there's also information in the poll suggesting that that low number actually underestimates the president's approval among military personnel: in the last 5 years, approval for some of Obama's military policies, like ending Don't Ask Don't Tell and opening combat units to women, have gained support, seeing a 30 percent rise in popularity.

There's another possible reason for drooping morale, especially among soldiers who fought in either Iraq or Afghanistan: It may be hard for some military personnel to see their work as effectual while ISIS becomes a deadly and rising force throughout the Middle East. 

Whether it's because of stagnant pay, stale leadership, Obama's supposed unpopularity, or the state of global geopolitics, the US military may have a very challenging problem on its hands. 

SEE ALSO: REPORT: ISIS just executed its top official in Mosul for planning a coup

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This air base in Qatar carries out American airstrikes in Iraq and Syria

Isaac Oates manages a team of 42 people at Justworks, an HR and payroll management startup that he founded in 2012.

Justworks wants to take the pain out of starting a business by making it easy to get employees enrolled in a benefits plan. 

Oates is pretty familiar with operations: He spent 12 years in the Army Reserve, enlisting with the help of a parent's note at the ripe young age of 17.

"The army has a certain style of leadership that people find attractive," Oates said. "Anyone who knows me well knows that I like doing things in a very clear, specific way. Also, treating people like family is important to me." 

He did ROTC during college and became an officer upon graduation.

He soon got a full-time software engineering job at Amazon, but he continued to take weekend shifts with the National Guard and Army Reserve. He also worked on counterterrorism analysis and commanded his own team.

"It kind of became a hobby while I was working full-time," Oates told Business Insider. "Those are really useful skills for any job." 

He ended up having two separate stints at Amazon between 2002 and 2009: nearly three years as a software engineer, then, after a short break for business school, a year and a half as a product manager. He worked with the National Guard for that entire stretch of time, though he did have to take a six month-leave from Amazon during officer training.

Amazon had a similar focus and rigor to the army. Oates described the Amazon experience in a blog post that was shared widely earlier this year: 

When you go to a meeting with Jeff Bezos at Amazon, you spend time preparing a document. It could be called a narrative, a 1-pager, or something else — the name doesn’t really matter. The document is an articulation of what you are trying to accomplish and your understanding of what it will take to get there. The document is long, thorough, and written in prose.

When you present to Jeff for an hour, you spend the first 20 minutes while he reads your narrative, making notes in the margins. Everyone else waits. It sounds like a waste of time, except that the following 40 minutes is pure gold. For 40 minutes, you have a strategic discussion where everyone in the room is on the same page, has the same context and access to detail.

I believe that those meetings, along with Jeff’s intellect, are Amazon’s true competitive advantage. They think better than their competition. Great decision-making and execution follow.

Into the startup world

Oates left Amazon in 2008 and started his own company, an ad platform called Adtuitive. The five-person startup was acquired by Etsy in 2009. 

The difficult experience of getting Adtuitive off the ground would serve as inspiration for Oates' current project: Justworks. 

"When we were trying to set up health care for our employees, we found that it was really complicated, and all of the forms and laws for benefits were different in other states," Oates said. "We just kept thinking, 'How do we make this better?'" 

To set up benefits through Justworks, a business owner only needs to set up an account and invite employees to the system. Employees then choose from various benefits packages. Everything from medical insurance and payroll to commuter benefits and 401(k) accounts can be managed through Justworks. Casper, Trello, and Ringly are among the startups who have signed on to use the service.

"The product definitely appeals to companies that are run by younger people," Oates said. "We also work with lots of agencies and creative people, as well as some doctors and dentists." 

Oates' experiences definitely influence how he runs Justworks today. As he wrote about his time at Amazon:

To this day, I avoid laptops in meetings and encourage presenters to participate as best they can. It’s tough. There’s a lot of pressure to be online and available all the time, much more so even than in 2009. I’m hopeful that by creating a place where distractions like email, social media, and Google can be avoided, I can get my team’s best thinking.

Justworks has raised $20 million in venture funding to date. Their most recent round was a $13 million Series B led by Bain Capital Ventures. Earlier investors Thrive Capital and Index Ventures also contributed to the round. 

SEE ALSO: Go inside the beautiful new office and test kitchen of the wildly popular food site Food52

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal on leadership and advice for his 20-year-old self

A new study identifies distinct profiles for U.S. army officers and enlisted soldiers at highest risk of attempting suicide.

Researchers say the results particularly highlight the importance of focusing prevention efforts on young enlisted men and women in their first tour of duty.

"Looking at suicide attempts is one part of the story of how does one get from suicide ideation to suicide plans to suicide attempt to completed suicide," said Dr. Robert Ursano of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. "The mental health and behavioral health issues that contribute to that risk is another."

For the new study, the researchers analyzed data on suicide attempts among U.S. Army soldiers from 2004 through 2009, during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. About four of every 1,000 active-duty U.S. Army soldiers made a suicide attempt during that time.

And in those years, the Army experienced the longest sustained increase in suicide rates relative to other military branches, such as the Marines, Navy and Air Force, the researchers note in JAMA Psychiatry.

To understand what risk factors might predict suicide attempts, they had data on more than 975,000 people on active duty. About 17 percent of those were officers. There were 9,791 suicide attempts among those soldiers during the study period.

That worked out to a rate of about 377 suicide attempts per 100,000 enlisted soldiers each year. For officers, the rate was about 28 attempts per 100,000 each year.

It's difficult to compare these rates to average Americans, because people in the Army differ from the general U.S. population in so many ways, researchers write. Also, not all suicide attempts in the general U.S. population may be reported.

Among enlisted soldiers, certain factors increased the risk of a suicide attempt.

"The highest risk is certainly in the first year of service," Ursano told Reuters Health. "In fact, likely in the first three months of service."

“We also found that suicide attempts are highest in those who never deployed or who were previously deployed," he said.

Other risk factors included having a mental health diagnosis in the prior month, being female, being age 29 or younger, having entered the army after age 25, being white or Asian, being single and not having completed high school.

It's likely that suicide attempts are less common among officers because they tend to differ from enlisted soldiers in ways relevant to risk, Ursano said. For example, officers tend to be older, married and have higher levels of education.

Still, being female, having a mental health diagnosis in the prior month and having entered the service after age 25 were also risk factors for officers. Being over age 40 was another predictor of risk.

The study cannot say why these factors contribute to suicide risk, and the next step is to look at more data from the study, Ursano said.

"There is a series of other drill downs that have to do with looking at details," he said, such as looking at when during deployment someone is most at risk.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Scientists have debunked a huge myth about frozen vegetables

The military has very talented photographers in its ranks, and they constantly attempt to capture what life as a service member is like during training and at war. This is the best of what they shot this week:

NAVY

Sailors spell out #USA with the American flag on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) in honor of the nation’s upcoming Independence Day weekend.

Sailors run after chocks and chaining an MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 265 (Reinforced) on the flight deck of the amphibious dock landing ship USS Ashland (LSD 48).

MARINE CORPS

Marines assigned to Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to conduct a high altitude high opening (HAHO) jump from a CH-53 Super Stallion during category 3 sustainment training in Louisburg, North Carolina.

Marines with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, watch the sunset as the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima sails through the Suez Canal.

AIR FORCE

An F-22 Raptor from the Hawaii Air National Guard’s 199th Fighter Squadron increases altitude shortly after takeoff at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.

U.S. Airmen assigned to the 455th Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron Armament Flight perform an inspection on an F-16 Fighting Falcon 20mm Gatlin gun at Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan.

ARMY

Soldiers, assigned to Joint Task Force-Bravo, help load a UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter onto a United States Air Force C-17 at Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras, for transport to Fort Bragg, N.C.

A Soldier, assigned to 709th Military Police Battalion, 18th Military Police Brigade, conducts explosives-detection and bite training with his working dog, Andy, on Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan.

Soldiers, assigned to 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, conduct a patrol during Exercise Marne Focus at Fort Stewart, Ga.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US Navy just tested a giant electromagnetic catapult

For the 240th anniversary of the US Army, Sgt. Jake Hughes models the uniforms from wars throughout American history.

Video courtesy of Reuters

Follow BI Video: On Facebook

Join the conversation about this story »

This post originally appeared as an answer by Trace Evans to the Quora thread: What is U.S. Marine Corps boot camp like?

Here was my experience at Marine Corps Boot Camp in San Diego, California.

As has been said there is no way to describe boot camp or even the Marine Corps accurately enough to really make them feel what it is like.

But, I will give it a shot. I began writing this and realized it was turning into a short story, so I will shorten it to the first 36 hours of boot camp, and it will give you some idea of how it is in boot camp.  

Boot camp is the time when a teen, or young adult, is taken and slapped in one of the worst places to be. That kid is broken down to that of a whimpering boy, then rebuilt into what the Marine Corps wants in its warriors.

The first time I asked myself "what am I doing here?" was basically my first run in with a drill instructor. This was at the USO in San Diego's Airport, yep that's right an airport. All recruits are flown to the airport and staged in the USO, effectively out of ear shot, or sight from the flying passengers.

Everyone there is basically thinking the same thing, holy crap what is about to happen! There will be people there who pretend to act calm and collected, that's fake. Everyone is terrified, and waiting for that minute to get there. They told you the time, I assume to mess with your head! 7:25 p.m. I will never forget it. 

So, there I was, 17 years old, one month out of high school, sitting on the couch watching T.V. I have no idea what was on because that wasn't what I was worried about. There were other soon to be recruits playing pool, drinking soda, eating the free food that was given. All of the workers at the USO had a look of "oh honey, you are about to have a bad three months." 

7:25 p.m. on the dot I heard, "Everyone going to MCRD get on your feet and get outside!" Not a scream, but just enough fire to make your heart race. I jumped up, and saw the drill instructor, about 6 feet tall, service charlie uniform perfect to every thread, that iconic campaign cover aka. smokey bear, and wouldn't you know it, an eye patch! This dude was scary. 

I ran outside as the Drill Instructor (DI) signed the paper work for the USO. We were all just standing around with no direction, or any idea of where or what to do. Then there was that voice again, "Get in a single file line at the side of the bus, have your SRB (service record book) ready to give me when you get on, do you understand?!" There were a lot of reserved "yes sir's," some said nothing, other's snickered. "THE CORRECT RESPONSE IS YES SIR, DO YOU UNDERSTAND!" This time we all said it! 

As I stood in line something caught my attention to my right (at this point any Marine reading this is probably saying don't do it man, don't do it), but I looked over to see what it was, and quickly looked forward. "HEAD AND EYE BALLS TO THE FRONT!" I said nothing, because I didn't know he was talking to me.

Side note: Every single person who goes through boot camp is, at some point, a blubbering idiot. All common sense leaves!

"YOU, OPEN YOUR MOUTH!" Still I said nothing, and now he was approaching. This was about to be my first, to put it into Marine jargon, ass chewing of my new career. 

The DI was directly in front of me, slightly at a 45 degree angle, seeing as there was another recruit in front of me. "I GUESS I DON'T RATE A RESPONSE, IS THAT RIGHT RECRUIT!" Then I looked at him, you are taught to look at anyone who is speaking to you, in boot camp this is suicide. As I looked I answered with a "nyes sir" Yep, a no and a yes combined so elegantly into recruit words. "I GUESS I SAID LOOK AT ME RIGHT, KEEP YOUR HEAD AND EYE BALLS FRONT, AYE AYE SIR!" DI's would sometimes give you the correct response at the end of there belittlements. So I shouted "Aye aye sir." 

Finally on the bus were we could take a simple breath, still too petrified to look anywhere but forward, my eyes burning from fear of closing them. "PUT YOUR HEAD IN YOUR LAPS!" We did without saying a word. "THAT RATES A RESPONSE, AYE AYE SIR!" We all shouted aye aye sir as we kept our heads in our laps. 

"You will keep your heads in your laps until you are told otherwise, do you understand?""Yes sir" we all shouted. The bus started driving to our new home, MCRD San Diego, California. The drive was probably only about 5 minutes, seeing as the airport is literally attached to MCRD. Not one person dared raise their head in defiance, even though the DI wasn't on the bus with us, we wouldn't even chance it. 

The bus stops, and the air being released from the brakes was almost deafening. My senses were all in over drive, my body telling me to get the hell out of there. There was a squeak from the door and footsteps up the ramp. "EYEBALLS!" This was the command given to recruits that instructed them to look at the DI. We all somehow figured that out without any prior knowledge because we all looked. This started the phase known as receiving. 

Receiving:

"You will stand up and quickly exit the bus, you will find yellow footprints on the pavement outside, you will fall in on those footprints from front to back, you will do this as fast as humanly possible, DO YOU UNDERSTAND ME!" 

"YES SIR!" 

"GET OFF MY BUS!" 

The iconic yellow footprints, you hear about these things in tales of the past, this is the same spot where every Marine has stood. You never knew if you were standing on the same prints as any of the hero's of old. Perhaps these belonged to a Medal of Honor recipient. You are told so much about these footprints that you expect you will be on them for three months. NOPE!

As soon as every recruit was on the foot prints we were taught the position of attention. Once that was accomplished we were gone. After being taught Article 86 of the UCMJ, dealing with hazing, we were off into the building. We had numbers written on our arms, our head was shaved, any and all personal belongings were taken, excluding money, credit cards, IDs, etc., we were issued our gear, and our identities were effectively removed.

From this point on I was recruit Evans, the lowest of the low. There wasn't one thing on the planet that I was above. Trash was more important than me, or so this is what they make you believe. We were turned over to our receiving DI's, these would not be our permanent ones of course, that is later. 

The first 36 hours are the worst, well the worst part of receiving, because you don't sleep, and are herded around so quickly you don't have time to even think. From line to line, desk to desk, room to room, the DI's had us processed in every system, on every piece of paper, and in every way attached to the United States Marine Corps.

By hour 30 I was closing my eyes just to wish I could sleep, but I was standing most of the time. You dare not fall asleep. I guess the recruit next to me didn't get that memo because he fell asleep, while standing, fell over, and didn't wake up until he hit the ground. I didn't even know that was possible.

Finally, FINALLY a bed. In the deep recesses of MCRD, in squad bays that looked, and probably were, condemned. This was the time when you go to sleep and think, tomorrow will be better. It can't be this bad the whole time. 

The next morning, wednesday, we were awaken in a very peaceful way, by our drill instructor throwing metal trashcans, shaking the beds, screaming things I wouldn't say to my worst enemy, and banging anything that made noise. It was 3 a.m. or at least that is what I assume because we didn't have watches, and I felt as though I had slept for about an hour. We got dressed as quickly as possible in the very noticeable attire of a Marine Corp recruit. 

Basically it is hell, and anyone who says it isn't or wasn't is lying. Or just had a really easy time in boot camp. Also, anyone who says that they couldn't do boot camp because they would just laugh at the DI's yelling at them is ignorant in every way. These are US Marines who are trained to destroy your soul. We had a couple of those people in my platoon, they didn't last long with their laughing. Only a drill instructor can make holding a pen the worst experience of your life. 

To give some examples of life in boot camp I will list a few of my experiences. 

- My shortest shower was 4 seconds long. Impossible? DI's made it work. 

- House turnover . . . I just cried a little. Imagine someone coming into your house with the soul intention of destroying it completely. This means taking clothes and putting them in the shower, moving 100 pound bunk beds from one side of the room to the other (the room being big enough to hold 130 recruits), pouring anything and everything they want on any clothing or gear, throwing everything in every drawer or cabinet anywhere they wish, pouring soap, detergent, or anything else they could get their hands on all over the place. Just imagine walking into that mess. Now, imagine someone forcing you to do it all the while screaming at you, then imagine having to clean that up. 

I lost things I never got back, I had someone else's shoes for the remainder of boot camp. It was a mess. Thankfully this only happened only 3 times. 

- Pushing the Nile:

My DI came up with this one, there were two rooms: The squad bay, and the head (bathroom). No door separated the two rooms, just a 6 foot wide opening. The tiles on the bathroom floor were different from the cement on the squad bay floor. In the bathroom there were two nozzles on which hoses could be attached. Why? I HAVE NO IDEA! The DI would turn the nozzles on and pour buckets of dirt on the floor. The recruits job? Never allow the water or dirt to touch the squad bay floor. His tool? 

Basically this. Recruits brushes look a little different, but I couldn't find a pic of one. It's a handheld brush.

- My shortest meal was on graduation day; I sat in my chair, and got back up immediately. That was the meal.

- How many people do you think can fit in one standard Porta-John, now imagine how many can fit wearing a flak-jacket, and a kevlar helmet? Got your number? Our DI accomplished 9. He once made a platoon of 89 recruits disappear in 10 porta-johns.

Now, this may all sound harsh and unnecessary, but I wouldn't have had it a different way. It teaches you more than you can imagine. Including showing you that your limits are in your mind. There are tons of experiences any Marine can offer, but as I said it is impossible to know what it is like unless you live it.

SEE ALSO: Eerie photos of World War II relics preserved at the bottom of the Pacific near the Marshall Islands

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 11 game-changing military planes from the last 15 years