2 soldiers killed in separate non-combat incidents in Iraq, Kuwait
Staff Sgt. Saul Fabian Gonzalez, 26, of Pullman, Mich., died Tuesday in Erbil, Iraq, and Sgt. 1st Class Emmett Wilfred Goodridge Jr., 40, of Roseville, Minn., died Sunday in Camp Buehring, Kuwait, according to a Defense Department statement.
No further details were given as to the cause of the deaths, which are both under investigation.
Gonzalez had been assigned to D Troop, 2nd Squadron, 101st Combat Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Ky., while Goodridge was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.
Both men had been supporting Operation Inherent Resolve at the time of their deaths. The operation is tasked with keeping the Islamic State at bay in the Middle East after the caliphate was defeated in Iraq in 2017 and in Syria in 2019.
Deaths of U.S. troops deployed to the Middle East are increasingly rare following the end of the Afghanistan war in 2021 and a 2024 agreement between the United States and Iraq to withdraw U.S.-led coalition forces from the country by the end of 2026.
But the area remains volatile, thanks to the Iranian-backed militia groups that can attack American forces in the region, with three Army soldiers killed in a drone attack on a small U.S. outpost in Jordan in January 2024.
And since Israel launched strikes on Iran on June 13, at least five U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria have come under fire from Tehran-supported militants, according to Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Long War Journal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
23 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
With sanctions lifted, Syria looks to solar power as more than a patchwork fix to its energy crisis
DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Abdulrazak al-Jenan swept the dust off his solar panel on his apartment roof overlooking Damascus. Syria's largest city was mostly pitch-black, the few speckles of light coming from the other households able to afford solar panels, batteries, or private generators. Al-Jenan went thousands of dollars in debt to buy his solar panel in 2019. It was an expensive coping mechanism at the time, but without it, he couldn't charge his phone and run the refrigerator. Syria has not had more than four hours of state electricity per day for years, as a result of the nearly 14-year civil war that ended with the ouster of former President Bashar Assad in December. Syria's new leaders are hoping renewable energy will now become more than a patchwork solution. Investment is beginning to return to the country with the lifting of U.S. sanctions, and major energy projects are planned, including an industrial-scale solar farm that would secure about a tenth of the country's energy needs. 'The solution to the problem isn't putting solar panels on roofs,' Syria's interim Energy Minister Mohammad al-Bashir told The Associated Press. 'It's securing enough power for the families through our networks in Syria. This is what we're trying to do.' Restoring the existing energy infrastructure Some of the efforts focus on simply repairing infrastructure destroyed in the war. The World Bank recently announced a $146 million grant to help Syria repair damaged transmission lines and transformer substations. Al-Bashir said Syria's infrastructure that has been repaired can provide 5,000 megawatts, about half the country's needs, but fuel and gas shortages have hampered generation. With the sanctions lifted, that supply could come in soon. More significantly, Syria recently signed a $7 billion energy deal with a consortium of Qatari, Turkish, and American companies. The program over the next three and a half years would develop four combined-cycle gas turbines with a total generating capacity estimated at approximately 4,000 megawatts and a 1,000-megawatt solar farm. This would 'broadly secure the needs' of Syrians, said Al-Bashir. While Syria is initially focusing on fixing its existing fossil fuel infrastructure to improve quality of life, help make businesses functional again, and entice investors, the U.N. Development Program said in May that a renewable energy plan will be developed in the next year for the country. The plan will look at Syria's projected energy demand and determine how much of it can come from renewable sources. 'Given the critical role of energy in Syria's recovery, we have to rapidly address energy poverty and progressively accelerate the access to renewable energy,' Sudipto Mukerjee, UNDP's resident representative in Syria, said in a statement announcing the plan. Sanctions crippled the power grid While the war caused significant damage to Syria's infrastructure, crippling Washington-led sanctions imposed during the Assad dynasty's decades of draconian rule made it impossible for Syria to secure fuel and spare parts to generate power. 'Many companies over the past period would tell us the sanctions impact matters like imports, implementing projects, transferring funds and so on,' al-Bashir said. During a visit to Turkey in May, the minister said Syria could only secure about 1700 megawatts, a little less than 20%, of its energy needs. A series of executive orders by U.S. President Donald Trump lifted many sanctions on Syria, aiming to end the country's isolation from the global banking system so that it can become viable again and rebuild itself. The United Nations estimates the civil war caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damages and economic losses across the country. Some 90% of Syrians live in poverty. Buying solar panels, private generators or other means of producing their own energy has been out of reach for most of the population. 'Any kind of economic recovery needs a functional energy sector,' said Joseph Daher, Syrian-Swiss economist and researcher, who said that stop-gap measures like solar panels and private generators were luxuries only available to a few who could afford it. 'There is also a need to diminish the cost of electricity in Syria, which is one of the most expensive in the region.' Prices for electricity in recent years surged as the country under its former rulers struggled with currency inflation and rolling back on subsidies. The new officials who inherited the situation say that lifting sanctions will help them rectify the country's financial and economic woes, and provide sufficient and affordable electricity as soon as they can. 'The executive order lifts most of the obstacles for political and economic investment with Syria," said Qutaiba Idlibi, who leads the Americas section of the Foreign Ministry. Syria has been under Washington-led sanctions for decades, but designations intensified during the war that started in 2011. Even with some waivers for humanitarian programs, it was difficult to bring in resources and materials to fix Syria's critical infrastructure — especially electricity — further compounding the woes of the vast majority of Syrians, who live in poverty. The focus is economic recovery The removal of sanctions signals to U.S. businesses that Trump is serious in his support for Syria's recovery, Idlibi said. 'Right now, we have a partnership with the United States as any normal country would do," he said. 'We can at least know what's going on in the country and watch on TV,' he said. 'We really were cut off from the entire world.' ___ Chehayeb reported from Beirut.
Boston Globe
39 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Europe's dilemma: Build a military industry or keep relying on the US
Patriot missile-defense systems are also imported from the United States, as are rocket launchers, sophisticated drones, long-range artillery guided by satellite, integrated command and control systems, electronic and cyber warfare capabilities — along with most of the software required to run them. Advertisement And because many European nations have already invested in American weapons, they want new purchases to remain compatible. The pledged investments have created tension. Should European nations build their own military industry? Does the war in Ukraine and the threat of a militarized Russia allow that much lead time? Or should they continue to invest, at least in part, in America's already available, cutting-edge technology? European officials debating how to answer those questions are embracing a middle strategy. Officials have placed limits on how much to spend on American equipment from certain tranches of money, including the flagship EU defense funding program — a 150 billion euro ($173 billion) loan facility to push joint procurement. But individual countries will do most of the purchasing and are free to allocate their resources as they see fit. Advertisement The spending debate has become more urgent as the United States shrinks its support for Ukraine. The Trump administration announced in recent days that it was pausing weapons shipments there, leaving European allies to step up. European countries agreed at last week's NATO summit to spend 3.5 percent of each country's annual national income on hardcore military investments, with an additional 1.5 percent on militarily relevant projects. The allies' pledges met a demand from President Trump to shoulder more responsibility for their defense. There are essentially two schools of thought as Europe embarks on a military spending binge, said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a think tank focused on the European Union. One view, strongly held by French officials and the EU institutions, is to restrict the use of Europe's funds for the longer-term priority of building its defense industry. That is especially important so that Europeans are not overly dependent on an American ally that some feel they can no longer trust. The other view, shared by the Nordic and Baltic nations and Poland, is that Europe needs capabilities now to help Ukraine and should spend in a less protectionist way. 'They believe that we can't be idealists but need to act now and spend now for Ukraine,' Grant said. Officials in Poland argue that the approaches are compatible. Poland is one of Europe's biggest defense spenders as a share of national income and buys its sophisticated weapons mostly from the United States. Because European nations will spend so much more than they have been, they can buy specialized products from the United States while also investing in local industries, the officials said. Advertisement 'From our national budgets, most European countries will continue to buy, with the possible exception of France, a huge proportion of their weapons from the United States,' Radoslaw Sikorski, the minister of foreign affairs in Poland, told reporters last month in Warsaw, Poland. But if Europe needs to be able to stand up to Russia on its own, as US officials have pushed, he said, Europe also needs an 'enhanced defense industry' with more capacity. 'We cannot import everything from the United States,' Sikorski said. A mixed approach means Europe is likely to remain dependent on key American technologies. Some officials worry that Washington may someday withhold critical software updates, a concern amplified by Trump's intermittent questioning of NATO commitments and periodically softer tone toward Russia. Take the F-35. Buying the $80 million jets means committing to a long-term relationship with their manufacturer for updates. Given the recent wobbling of the trans-Atlantic alliance, officials in nations including Portugal, Canada, and Denmark have questioned future purchases of the jet. That's where European nations run into reality. They have no equivalent alternative to this fifth-generation fighter, which many countries already use, and Washington plans to develop a sixth generation. That dilemma partly explains the view, led by Nordic and German officials, that Europe must keep good relations with US defense companies even if communication with Trump is strained, said Claudia Major, a security expert with the German Marshall Fund. She said such relationships will last and that American companies 'fear being excluded from the European defense cake, which is growing.' 'They want to stay in the European game,' she said. Advertisement But as the European Union tries to balance two priorities — growing its domestic defense industrial base while retaining important American tech — it is limiting how much it spends on US weapons in a key joint procurement push. When it was unveiled in March, the 150 billion euro loan program for military procurement was meant to limit full participation to EU nations and close partners, such as Norway and Ukraine. Britain, Australia, and Canada, have been working toward joining as full participants by signing a security and defense partnership with the bloc, a prerequisite for inclusion. But there will be a cap on how much military equipment can be bought from companies in countries that are not members under the plan, including American firms: just 35 percent. For those casting a wary eye toward America, the question is whether such joint initiatives will be enough to push European industry up the technology chain. The risk is that the coming wave of spending will perpetuate the existing system, in which Europe churns out a varied heap of howitzers and ammunition while relying on the United States for advanced capabilities.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists faces federal trial
'Students and faculty are avoiding political protests, purging their social media, and withdrawing from public engagement with groups associated with pro-Palestinian viewpoints,' they wrote. 'They're abstaining from certain public writing and scholarship they would otherwise have pursued. They're even self-censoring in the classroom.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Several scholars are expected to testify how the policy and subsequent arrests have prompted them to abandon their activism for Palestinian human rights and criticizing Israeli government's policies. Advertisement Since Trump took office, the U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars at several American universities. Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel's actions in the war. Plaintiffs single out several activists by name, including Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. Advertisement The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana immigration detention. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She claims she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year that criticized the school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. The plaintiffs also accuse the Trump administration of supplying names to universities who they wanted to target, launching a social media surveillance program and used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.' The government argued in court documents that the plaintiffs are bringing a First Amendment challenge to a policy 'of their own creation.' 'They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance,' the government argues. 'That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists.' They argue the plaintiffs case also rest on a 'misunderstanding of the First Amendment, 'which under binding Supreme Court precedent applies differently in the immigration context than it otherwise does domestically." But plaintiffs counter that evidence at the trial will show the Trump administration has implemented the policy a variety of ways, including issuing formal guidance on revoking visas and green cards and establishing a process for identifying those involved in pro-Palestinian protests. Advertisement 'Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it,' plaintiffs wrote. 'It is only now that the policy has been challenged that they say, incredibly, that the policy does not actually exist. But the evidence at trial will show that the policy's existence is beyond cavil.'
