Latest news with #ArmyReserve
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
Harvard faculty who fear school's destruction urge Trump deal
The stakes for Harvard will be in focus on July 21. WASHINGTON - Mr Kit Parker is used to being an anomaly on Harvard University's campus. The physicist – an Army Reserve colonel who served in Afghanistan – is a long-time critic of the school's hiring practices and what he sees as liberal biases. For months, he has urged the university to address criticisms from the White House, even as the vast majority of his colleagues applauded Harvard's decision to resist President Donald Trump's efforts to reshape higher education. These days, in Mr Parker's telling, he finds himself less isolated as Harvard confronts the harsh realities of a sustained fight with the US government. Three months after university President Alan Garber struck a defiant tone by vowing not to 'surrender its independence or its constitutional rights,' an increasingly vocal group of professors across schools including engineering, law and medicine say Harvard should reach a deal. Faculty such as Mr Parker and Mr Eric Maskin, an economics and mathematics professor who won a Nobel Prize in 2007, want Harvard to resolve the clash with Mr Trump before punishing financial penalties cause irreparable damage to the school and the US. They and other faculty agree that reform is needed to address issues including antisemitism, political bias and academic rigor. Harvard declined to comment on negotiations with the Trump administration. The stakes for Harvard will be in focus on July 21, when a federal judge in Boston will hear arguments on whether the Trump administration illegally froze more than US$2 billion in research funding, as the university claims. In a sign that the Trump administration is not running out of ways to challenge the school, government agencies in July threatened Harvard's accreditation and subpoenaed data on its international students. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Priority for singles, higher quota for second-timer families to kick in from HDB's July BTO exercise Singapore New home owners in Singapore find kampung spirit on BTO Telegram groups Singapore Witness stand not arena for humiliation in sex offence cases, judge reminds lawyers Asia Japan PM's future in doubt after election debacle Business Bigger, quieter, greener: High-volume low-speed fans see rising demand in warming Singapore Business DBS hits record high above $47; CDL up after director Philip Yeo announces resignation Singapore What would it take for S'pore to shed the dirty image of its blue recycling bins? World Gaza civil defence says Israeli fire kills 93 aid seekers Just last week, Mr Garber warned the combined impact of the federal government's actions could cost the school as much as US$1 billion annually – a figure that takes into account federal research cuts, a higher endowment tax and the government's continuing attempt to ban it from enrolling foreign students. Mr Garber said that the school will continue to slash expenditures and that a hiring freeze will remain in place. 'There's a point at which the grant cuts destroy Harvard as a leading university,' said law professor Mark Ramseyer. 'That point is far below US$1 billion. So we were already fully in the disaster zone.' Faculty members like Mr Parker, Mr Maskin and Mr Ramseyer – all members of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, a campus group that says it supports free inquiry, intellectual diversity and civil discourse – remain a minority in the wider Harvard community. In a survey of professors in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 71 per cent said they believed Harvard shouldn't try to reach an agreement with the Trump administration. The poll was conducted by the student newspaper in April and May, and less than a third of some 1,400 professors it was distributed to responded, meaning it might not be a representative sample of views overall. FAS houses 40 academic departments. An alumni group called Crimson Courage continues to urge Mr Garber to fight, and many students would find a settlement unpalatable. 'Standing strong is not merely an operational exercise: it is a moral imperative,' Crimson Courage said last month in a letter to Mr Garber and the board that oversees the university. 'The world is watching and needs Harvard's leadership and courage now.' The splits hint at the delicate position Harvard's leadership is in after months of standing up to the Trump administration, including by suing the government for cutting off federal funding and to prevent a ban on international students. In the hearing on July 21 in the federal funding case, Harvard is poised to argue the administration's freeze violated its First Amendment rights and failed to follow proper procedures under civil rights law. But the administration argues that Harvard failed to address antisemitism, and the US acted properly under federal law in terminating funding. Harvard has said it is working to combat antisemitism with steps like updating its rules on use of campus spaces, reviewing its disciplinary processes and funding projects aimed at bridging campus divisions. For Mr Garber and the Harvard Corporation, the powerful governing body led by Ms Penny Pritzker, striking a deal quickly would offer significant benefits. Students are set to start returning to campus in a matter of weeks, so reaching a settlement before then would potentially allow the school to provide a measure of clarity to international students before the start of the academic year. If funding were restored as part of an agreement, it could also end months of uncertainty for researchers. Mr David Bergeron, a former acting assistant secretary at the Department of Education in Barack Obama's administration, pointed to another advantage for Harvard of arriving at an agreement soon. 'There are fewer faculty and students around in the summer to object,' Mr Bergeron said. Now that the school has become an avatar for resistance to Mr Trump's efforts to transform higher education, a settlement will be perceived by some key constituencies as a capitulation. Ms Bertha Madras, a professor at Harvard Medical School since 1986, said that she thinks some of the changes that could stem from an agreement would benefit the university – even if she thought Mr Trump's tactics for achieving them were aggressive. 'This new reality calls for institutional pride to yield to negotiations,' said Ms Madras, a professor of psychobiology, adding that she sees 'an opportunity for timely self-examination and fast-track reforms.' Mr Maskin, who is one of seven co-presidents of the Council on Academic Freedom, holds a similar view. 'There are plenty of things that Harvard could be doing and should be doing. To go ahead and do them is not caving. It's making the university better,' Mr Maskin said. Still, it's not clear how much progress Harvard and the Trump administration have made toward a deal. While President Trump said last month that Harvard was close to a 'mindbogglingly' historic deal, Bloomberg News later reported that talks between the administration and the school had stalled. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in July that the administration was 'negotiating hard' with both Harvard and Columbia University. 'I think we're getting close to having that happen. It's not wrapped up as fast as I wanted to, but we're getting there,' she added. BLOOMBERG
Telegraph
08-07-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
‘I was desperate to fight for my country, but my dream was destroyed by military bureaucracy'
Tom Hughes is the kind of young man who could front an Armed Forces recruitment ad. He dreamt of joining the Royal Navy since boyhood, served in his local Sea Cadet Force, and has few of Generation Z's hang-ups about military life. So in 2021, fresh from graduation, he filled in the online application to join, and waited. And waited. Several months later, he got a call from the Armed Forces careers office – bringing not one, but two pieces of bad news: 'First, they told me that I'd been declared medically unfit, because I'd seen a physio three years before about a pain in one leg,' says Hughes, 27, from Pembrokeshire. 'Not only that, they accused me of dishonesty for not mentioning it on the application form.' Hughes had all but forgotten about the physio appointment, which had happened while he was doing basic training for the Army Reserve at university back in 2018, and which was already on his military records. 'They told me it was nothing serious, so I didn't even mention it when I applied for the Navy,' he says. 'But after they deemed me medically unfit, I had to appeal. It dragged on for a whole year before they resolved it in my favour, and even then, there was no apology for questioning my integrity.' Despite winning his appeal, Hughes was so ground down by the procedure that he put his dream of a Navy career aside. He plans to reapply at some point in the future, although not every recruit has his level of persistence. According to statistics published last year, roughly three-quarters of the million-odd people who applied to join Britain's Armed Forces over the past decade, gave up because the procedure went on too long. Some 83 per cent of the 707,000 people who applied to join the Army voluntarily withdrew their application. Risking their lives for King and country is one thing. Doing battle with military recruitment bureaucracy – an assault course of call centres, red tape and over-fussy criteria – is another altogether. Even for those who are successful, wait times of six or nine months are common. Last month, the Forces' HR procedures got a broadside from no less a figure than the head of the Armed Forces, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin. He told a Parliamentary defence committee that contrary to popular opinion, young people were more than willing to fight: for every place in the Army, for example, there were up to a dozen applicants. Instead, the problem was the recruitment process, which he said was 'behind the times'. 'Young people expect a response and they expect engagement,' he said. 'They do not expect to have to fill in the most difficult computer system ever. We take too long to deal with medical issues. We lose too many people.' Adml Radakin's intervention comes in the wake of a two-year-long Armed Forces recruitment ad campaign called 'You Belong Here', designed to show the military as a modern, inclusive employer. What has not evolved as fast, however, is physical selection criteria, which critics say is outdated and over-fussy. In the past decade, for example, thousands of applicants have been blocked for conditions like hay fever, eczema and even acne. MoD guidelines from 2019 state that severe adolescent pimples can 'affect the ability to wear military clothing or to operate military equipment'. Nor is it just the spotty and snotty who are at risk. Bygone injuries such as broken bones and torn ligaments – often simply the result of an active lifestyle – can also rule applicants out. Right now, Britain's military chiefs cannot afford to be that choosy. At a summit in The Hague last month, all Nato member nations pledged to increase defence spending to 5 per cent by 2035 to counter the threat from Russia. Yet all three Armed Forces branches are currently struggling to maintain their ranks, thanks to difficulties in retention as well as recruitment. Last year, more than 14,500 service members left, while only 12,850 new recruits joined. Indeed, just last month one of the Royal Navy's most senior officers warned it was effectively running out of sailors, owing to the recruitment crisis. Asked to identify the single biggest challenge facing the Navy, Vice-Admiral Andrew Burns, the Fleet Commander, cited a shortfall in headcount. 'It's people, right now. It's the quantity of people.' Ministry of Defence (MoD) figures show Britain's naval forces have failed to hit their recruitment targets every year since 2011, registering a deficit of more than 1,500 personnel in 2023-24. Overall, intake was therefore 40 per cent below the desired level, with the Army and the Royal Air Force missing their own targets too, by 37 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. 'Computer says no' culture Among those who share the concerns voiced by Adml Radakin and Vice-Adml Burns is Helen Maguire, the Liberal Democrat's defence spokesperson. She has personal experience of the military recruitment procedure, having served as a captain with the Royal Military Police in Iraq. She points out that people in their late teens or early twenties, 'cannot afford to wait around' while applications drag on, and may end up taking different career paths altogether. She also questions the decision, implemented since 2012, to close many high street recruitment offices and outsource procedures to HR firm Capita. That, she says, has created an impersonal, centralised system that fosters a 'computer says no' culture. She contrasts it to her own experience more than 20 years ago, where officers were selected via the Army's Regular Commissions Board, or RCB. 'At the time, there'd generally be some retired colonel who'd talk to you on a very friendly basis and help you understand what life in the military would be like. You'd then do a pre-RCB test, where you'd be graded green, amber or red, according to suitability. 'But the same weekend you did that, you'd also get a full medical on-site, so if you had any conditions, they'd tell you pretty much immediately. Today, that system doesn't exist for a lot of regular soldiers – instead their primary contact is with a civilian in Capita, who's going through a bit of a tick-box exercise.' That gets particularly problematic, she adds, if a recruit has a medical issue such as childhood asthma or an old rugby injury. Whereas before, the on-site medical could often resolve it either way immediately, now it often involves requests for bygone medical records, involving a separate bureaucratic battle with the NHS. 'Unless you've been with the same doctor from birth, you'll have to go back to some old surgery and ask them to dig out your records, which isn't a priority for most GPs.' A particularly tricky hurdle is mental health. Generation Z have been taught not to see this as a taboo subject, and to seek professional help if they have issues. But a medical history of mental health issues or self-harm can complicate an application to the military, where everyone must be assessed on how they will cope in extremis, in a warzone. 'Younger people are generally more open about mental health issues, and don't always realise how strict the military can be about it,' says Alexander Shane Archer, a former Army officer who now writes on military affairs. 'The military understandably has a very low risk tolerance on this, but there is a bit of a sense that it hasn't adapted to changing times.' While there is no blanket ban on those with a history of mental health issues, provided they are not too recent or severe, each case is judged on its own merits. Military social media forums often have chat threads about whether scars from past self-harming attempts may scupper applications. Outdated 'job for life' thinking More generally, there is a sense that in 21st-century warfare, not every applicant needs to be capable of marching 30 miles across the Brecon Beacons. Paul O'Neill is a senior associate at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), who previously worked within HR for the MoD. He says the military still operates with something of a 'job for life' recruitment culture, which most employers long ago abandoned. According to Adml Radakin, the military's medical rules assume all recruits may serve a full career of 22 years when, for most, the length of service is only between seven and 12 years. 'There is a view that those joining the Armed Forces will be there till pension age, when in reality, most don't serve anything like that long,' O'Neill says. 'That drives a demand for physical perfection. There's also an assumption that anyone in uniform must be able to pick up a weapon and fight – but there are probably some areas where you could change that.' One category where fitness rules have already been relaxed is the new National Cyber Force, where recruits will do a shortened version of the 10-week basic training. MoD guidelines also state that applicants, 'will not be required to serve in dangerous environments, and there is no weapons handling involved.' While some fear this risks creating a 'two-tier military', others argue it is simply pragmatic. As one defence insider jokes: 'Alan Turing probably couldn't do many push-ups.' Last month, Vice-Adml Burns said recruitment procedures should be reviewed to attract more tech-minded staff. 'A different blend in the workforce is required for the sort of systems and challenges we are going to face,' he said in a lecture at RUSI. 'That doesn't mean, necessarily, that we want people in uniform, because we know there are people with the right skills out there that want to serve their nation, but we don't necessarily have to have them marching up and down a parade ground.' The Defence Secretary John Healey, who was a robust critic of recruitment procedures while in opposition, insists things are now improving. Last year his department scrapped more than 100 'outdated medical policies', leading to more than 700 case reviews for applicants who had been blocked for conditions like hay fever and acne. An MoD spokesperson said: 'This Government inherited a recruitment crisis, with targets being missed every year for the past 14 years and is taking decisive action to stop the long-term decline in numbers and speed up the recruitment process. 'We are committed to fixing recruitment and retention and have already given personnel the largest pay rise in decades,' said the spokesperson, adding that the Government had 'passed legislation through the Commons to introduce a new Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life.' A new combined Armed Forces Recruitment Service will also launch in 2027, replacing the individual Army, Navy and Air Force schemes, which the MoD says will make recruitment 'faster, simpler and more accessible for everyone.' Among those who might be re-applying will be Tom Hughes. In the year it had taken for his application to be reviewed, he had secured a new job working in the Welsh parliament, and saw other career opportunities opening up. But while he is prepared to give the Navy another chance, he warns that other applicants might be less patient. 'I do still want to join the Navy, as it's always been my dream, but a lot of people who went through what I went through might decide they have better options in life.'
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Army just turned 4 Big Tech execs into instant officers. What an insult
When I was a young attorney in Hutchinson, Kansas, a friend of mine suggested that we join the Army Reserve or National Guard as members of the Judge Advocate General Corps. I had recently opened a private law practice, had one child and another on the way. Once I joined, I would receive a direct commission as a first lieutenant. For weekend drills, I would be paid a little over $100 and around $1,500 for two weeks of annual training. With the offer of a little adventure and some much-needed cash, I joined the Kansas Army National Guard and stayed 24 years. In order to receive my direct commission, I had to complete a Direct Commission Course in Arkansas. I flew to the course, courtesy of the U.S. Army. I was 29, and it was the first time I had flown in an airplane. At the course there were other lawyers like me, doctors, nurses and future chaplains. After completing the course, chaplains were commissioned as first lieutenants, nurses as second lieutenants and doctors as captains (which at the time, ticked me off). The direct commission program still exists today. There is such a shortage in the medical field that if a nurse takes a direct commission, the U.S. Army will pay his or her tuition to medical school and up to a $40,000 bonus for joining. A doctor of psychiatry can receive up to a $600,000 bonus. Just recently, I learned that the U.S. Army Reserve is giving direct commissions to several executives from Big Tech firms Meta, OpenAI and Palantir at the rank of lieutenant colonel to serve in Detachment 201, a new Executive Innovation Corps. When I learned of this, I was not a happy camper, so I dug a little deeper. In 2019, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019, which gave the military services the authorization to direct commission officers up to the rank of colonel. That means a civilian can receive a direct commission as a bird colonel (colonels wear an eagle as their rank) if they have the requisite background. Let me put this in perspective: I was not promoted to colonel until I served 19 years. During those 19 years in the Kansas Army National Guard, I progressed from first lieutenant to captain, major, lieutenant colonel and, finally, colonel. I took years of classes, including the Judge Advocate Basic Course, the Advanced Judge Advocate Course and Command and General Staff College. During the 19 years it took me to reach the rank of colonel, I went to around 200 weekend drills, 19 or more sessions of annual training, deployed to Bosnia, made numerous trips overseas and helped with the recovery from Hurricane Katrina. The average age of lieutenant colonels is 39, and by the time they have achieve that rank, they have served 16 years in the military. The average age of colonels is 45 and they usually have served around 22 years in the military. These four executives are all multimillionaires several times over, and will be commissioned at a rank usually achieved by officers who have served at least 20 years in their military careers. They will reportedly not be required to complete the Army Fitness Test or participate in the military's six-week-long Direct Commission Course, though they will be given a crash course on military history and take a physical test and marksmanship training. It is almost as though these four individuals are being awarded the rank of lieutenant colonel because of their wealth and status, much like the British Army used to allow the purchasing of military commissions, or as one is rewarded with an ambassadorship because of a large political donation. There is some precedent. During World War II, several famous actors and musicians were given direct commissions. For example, Hollywood filmmaker John Ford was commissioned as a commander in the United States Navy Reserve and served as the head of a photographic unit. Popular bandleader Glenn Miller became a major in the U.S. Army. However, one must keep in mind there was a war on, in which nearly everyone in our nation was mobilized to help the effort in some way. I find it unfair and unwise that someone can receive a direct commission to lieutenant colonel or colonel. Yes, we need technical experts and other specialists, but taking someone with zero military experience and making them an officer is a bit absurd. Direct commissions above captain are bad for morale. Here you are a major, 15 years into your military career, and a civilian is suddenly your ranking officer, and they have not even been to a single military school and cannot pass the Army Fitness Test. How do they even know how to wear the uniform properly, know when and who to salute, or any other basics about the military? What happens if there is a crisis and a colonel with no military training is in charge and must handle the emergency? Do they know how to fire and clean a weapon? Direct commissions should be limited to the rank of captain. If the military needs to recruit those with special skills, then let's do it with bonuses or other enticements (maybe even a little patriotism). At the very minimum, those receiving a direct commission should be required to pass the Army Fitness test, successfully complete the Direct Commission Course, followed by the other U.S. Army courses required to reach the rank of lieutenant colonel and colonel. Tom Arnhold of Olathe is a retired attorney, judge and a 24-year veteran of the Kansas Army National Guard, where he served as a JAG officer.
Yahoo
29-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Woman Defends Mentioning Husband's Deployment to Middle East on TikTok After She's Accused of 'Breaking OPSEC' (Exclusive)
Cassady Yarbrough is a military spouse whose husband is currently deployed overseas Following the news of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, she took to TikTok to post a video she believed to be harmless Commenters thought otherwise and accused her of "breaking OPSEC"Cassady Yarbrough is a stay-at-home mother who often shares candid lifestyle content, including the unique challenges of life as a military spouse with a deployed husband in the Army Reserve. "Each deployment brings its own emotions. It's always hard to say goodbye, and even though I've been through it before, it never gets easier - just more familiar," she tells PEOPLE exclusively. "I'm naturally pretty independent, and I've learned how to manage things on my own, especially while taking care of our two girls." On June 24, 2025, she revealed that her husband was deployed in the Middle East on TikTok. In the clip, Yarbrough is seen mouthing the words to a popular audio track: "I wanna be sparkly, in pinks and purples, but the world is on fire and I am angry." "But I just saw there is a cease I don't need to be angry anymore," she captioned the video, referencing the ceasefire agreement brokered between Iran and Israel one day prior. "This is actually his fourth time deploying to the Middle East - once before we met when he was in the Marine Corps, and this is our third time since we've been together," Yarbrough explains. "I'd be lying if I said the current situation doesn't feel a little more intense. But based on where he is and what he's doing, I don't feel overly worried. We've been through this before and trust each other completely." Earlier in the week, President Donald Trump announced that the United States had bombed three nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan. Iran responded by launching a missile strike against a U.S. military base in Qatar. With tension escalating between Israel and Iran – especially after the two countries reportedly broke the ceasefire Trump announced on June 23 – viewers cautioned the 33-year-old mom from Nebraska to be more careful with what she reveals online. In the comments, other military wives and soldiers chimed in on whether Yarbrough was "breaking OPSEC" (Operational Security) with her video. 'As an army wife myself, please don't post things like this,' one commenter wrote. 'Always respect OPSEC, for the safety of your husband, my husband, and all other soldiers!!" Another commenter took to Yarbrough's defense, writing, 'Girl, we're not at war with anyone. YET there's no OPSEC and the Middle East is a very vague term. She's fine. - As a soldier.' An official from the U.S. Department of Defense tells PEOPLE that Yarbrough did not, in fact, "break OPSEC," as Operations Security is actually a process rather than a code that can be broken. According to the definition provided by the official, "OPSEC is the process by which we protect critical information, whether it is classified or unclassified, that can be used against us. It focuses on preventing our adversaries' access to information and actions that may compromise an operation. OPSEC challenges us to look at ourselves through the eyes of an adversary and deny the adversary the ability to act." While it's something to take extremely seriously, simply stating that your spouse or someone you know is deployed is not a violation, given there are nearly 40,000 people deployed in the Middle East. If a spouse were to reveal sensitive information, such as the exact location of soldiers and their operational details, which could jeopardize missions and soldier safety, the official says they wouldn't be arrested. Instead, the compromised operation could change and adapt to ensure soldier safety, and the spouse would get little to no information about missions in the future. In a follow-up video addressing the comments, Yarbrough explained that she purposefully left the location vague and even asked her husband of 15 years if she had broken OPSEC, to which he responded, "No." 'I promise I know what I'm doing,' she captioned the post. 'I understand the world is crazy right now, just wanted to make a funny video.' Yarbrough was in disbelief that viewers would think the video was more than just a joke. She believes it's important for other military spouses to see that they can share their experiences without crossing any lines. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. "Honestly, when I saw those comments, I kind of rolled my eyes. I take OPSEC seriously and would never put my husband or anyone else at risk," she tells PEOPLE. "I even ran the video by him before I posted it, just to be sure everything I said was okay. It's easy for people online to jump to conclusions without knowing the full story." Despite ongoing uncertainties, President Trump has repeatedly insisted that the ceasefire is still in effect and that the U.S. is not at war. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The 10-Minute Desk Workout Soldiers Use to Stay Fit
For a lot of us, the better part of our waking hours is spent hunched over a desk, staring at a screen, with maybe a walk to the kitchen counting as our most significant movement for the day. Study after study has shown that sitting for hours on end is seriously detrimental to our health. Still, here we are, sitting our lives away. While active-duty military members aren't exactly sedentary on the job, they face the same challenge we do when they're back home: finding simple ways to stay moving. That's where the Army's Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) system comes in. As part of its 'All You' video series, Army Reserve Lt. Col. Jason Barber, PA-C, CSCS, TSAC-F, put together a quick, effective, 10-minute workout you can do right from your desk—no gym, no excuses."I'm actually doing this job as the health and wellness coordinator in the Army Reserve for their H2F system, and I am in a two-by-two cubicle working," Barber says. "So I'm noticing that I need to get up more. You notice that your tissue becomes stiffer the longer you sit. All these aches and pains come even though you're not doing anything because it's not motion, and so it's important for us to just be moving as much as we can." According to Barber, little movements throughout the day can make a big difference. For him, it's as simple as taking the stairs to a different floor to grab coffee or stopping by a colleague's desk to catch up—just to move his body and give his mind a break. It's a little trickier if you work from home, but the same principle applies. A walking pad under your desk or a quick walk outside during your lunch break can go a long way. "Quite frankly, if you've ever done any rehab for an injury before, you know that little bits more often during the day are actually better for you than a big chunk once during the day," Barber says. "So they've talked about one hour of sitting can almost debunk like 20 straight minutes of running, so that's just really an uphill battle and fight." To help you get movement more often when you're typically sitting all day, Barber created a quick 10-minute workout you can do right at your desk—no equipment needed. Repeat for 5 to 10 reps per exercise, trying to get 2 to 3 rounds in during a 10-minute work break. Stand with feet shoulder width apart and toes turned out slightly, to start. Sit back with your hips and lower your body as far as you can without rounding your lower back. Push your knees out as you descend and keep your chest up. Rise to standing and repeat. Start in a high plank position, stacking your shoulders directly over your wrists. Keeping your spine straight and elbows veering out slightly, drop down toward the floor. Touch your chest to the ground or a few inches away, making sure your elbows are bent at least 90 degrees. Rise to starting position and with a dumbbell in both hands and step back with your left foot, to start. Lower your body until your front thigh is parallel to the floor and your rear knee nearly touches the floor. Keep your torso upright. Step forward to return to the starting position. Complete all reps on one leg, then switch legs. Stand holding a medicine ball or another weighted object in front of your body with your arms bent. Your feet should be shoulder-width apart and knees slightly bent. Rotate your torso, keep your feet planted, and your eyes straight ahead. Rotate to the opposite side and repeat. Jump your right foot to the right, bringing your left foot diagonally behind you, left arm across the front of your body, and right arm behind you as you land. Don't touch the other foot to the ground. Repeat on the other side; try not to stop once you 10-Minute Desk Workout Soldiers Use to Stay Fit first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 25, 2025
