North Korea successfully test-fired a hypersonic missile into the sea this week, a new weapon it said bolsters the isolated country’s defense, North Korean state news outlet Korean Central News Agency claimed, according to reports. 

“The development of this weapons system…[has increased] the nation’s capabilities for self-defense in every way,” KCNA said. 

The Hwasong-8 missile appears far from ready for combat and is in an early stage of development, South Korea’s Joint Chief of Staff said after analyzing the launch, Reuters reported.

The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said the launch highlighted “the destabilizing impact of (North Korea’s) illicit weapons program.”

KCNA said the missile met key technical requirements during its first flight test, including launch stability and the maneuverability and flight characteristics of the “detached hypersonic gliding warhead.”

Hypersonic weapons are low-flying, maneuverable and can fly more than 3,800 mph, in excess of five times the speed of sound, according to Reuters. Its speed and trajectory make it difficult to shoot down. 

NORTH KOREA MAY BE RAMPING UP NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AGAIN, SATELLITE IMAGES SHOW 

The missile also likely has nuclear capabilities, which the country has continued developing since nuclear talks stalled during the Trump administration, BBC News reported. 

The U.S. tested a hypersonic weapon — the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept — last week. It was the first successful test of that class of weapon in eight years. Russia also had a successful test of a hypersonic cruise missile in July. 

A missile expert at a South Korean aerospace university said North Korea’s missile only clocked Mach 2.5, which would make it supersonic not hypersonic and “not comparable” to the U.S. or Russia’s capabilities, according to Reuters.  

North Korea also accused the U.S. and South Korea of “double standards” regarding its own weapons development and called on the countries to resume talks, Reuters reported. 

The same day as the test, the country’s United Nations envoy demanded the U.S and South Korea end joint exercises in the region, according to Axios. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“We regret that the missile was fired at a time when it was very important to stabilize the situation of the Korean peninsula,” South Korea defense ministry spokesman Boo Seung-chan said, according to Reuters. 

The U.S. Department of Defense didn’t immediately respond to Fox News’ early morning request for comment. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tuesday, top U.S. military officials publicly acknowledged they advised President Joe Biden to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan despite the president’s claim otherwise. 

This amid multiple sources confirming extremist organizations such al-Qaeda and ISIS-K are still present in Afghanistan and remain a rising threat to U.S. national security. While Tuesday’s Senate hearing was a productive start to this investigation, I am looking forward to asking General Mark Milley, Secretary Lloyd Austin, and General Kenneth McKenzie questions in Wednesday’s House Armed Services Committee Hearing.

Leading up to the Biden Administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the president touted an “over-the-horizon” capability that would allow the U.S. to identify and eliminate threats from afar. The Biden administration has claimed the U.S. did not need a counterterrorism force in Afghanistan because the U.S. possessed significant intelligence and military capability to attack and eliminate terrorist threats reaching into Afghanistan from other U.S. military locations.

REP. MIKE TURNER: AMID AFGHANISTAN HORROR SHOW, BIDEN SEEMS COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS TO HIS OWN FAILURES

However, Biden’s withdrawal left a gap in intelligence gathering capabilities that has caused targeting decisions to be made with incomplete information, with increased risk and assumptions, and outside the norms of standard protocols. The Administration’s reliance on this counterterrorism strategy demonstrates an inherently faulty decision-making process that on August 29th, led to mistakenly killing an aid worker and his family and has raised questions that Biden must now address.

In the wake of the August 26th ISIS-K suicide attack that killed 13 American service members and dozens of Afghans, President Biden vowed to hunt down those responsible for the bloodshed. The Pentagon has admitted, in an effort to frustrate a subsequent and possibly imminent ISIS-K attack, a pack of U.S. drones surveilled an alleged ISIS safe house and spotted a vehicle implicated in the plot.

During this time, Zemari Ahmadi, an aid worker, apparently drove this very same type of make and model car, though ubiquitous in Kabul, to the compound under surveillance by a U.S. Strike Cell. While now unknowingly under the watchful eye of U.S. intelligence analysts, Ahmadi went about his daily errands to support the feeding of displaced Afghans. Eight hours later, a hellfire missile destroyed Ahmadi’s vehicle, killing him and nine family members, several of whom were children.

So, what went wrong?

Leading up to the strike, the administration admits that the “over-the-horizon” U.S. strike cell hastily analyzed limited available intelligence that alarmingly, but not surprisingly, predicted a second imminent ISIS-K attack during the ongoing chaotic U. S. evacuation at the Karzai Airport. 

On the morning of August 29th, this is where Ahmadi began his day, reportedly stopping at the home of his boss, not an ISIS-K hideout. After eight hours, during which Ahmadi apparently visited the offices of a U.S.-based aid group, an Afghan district police station and the homes of several coworkers for pick-up and drop-off, the “over-the horizon” assessment was that Ahmadi’s vehicle contained explosives and supplies for an attack.

Although initially characterized as a ‘righteous strike,’ by General Milley, against an ‘ISIS facilitator’ that prevented an attack against U.S. forces still on the ground, the Pentagon was forced to admit weeks later that it was wrong. 

When considering this admission, one might ask, were standard protocols required to launch a strike compromised? General McKenzie, the CENTCOM Commander, suggested future targeting would be more deliberate and would include increased monitoring, planning and assessment of risk to establish a ‘pattern of life.’  But in the case of Ahmadi, ‘pattern of life,’ confirming his identity and his home as the target, was tragically not established.

Why the short cuts? And who made that call?

Some answers may include the believed imminence of an attack on U.S. forces, still haphazardly evacuating personnel from the nearby airport. However, was the increased risk of uncertainty accounted for in the analysis about this particular car? For Ahmadi, his claimed stop at or near a suspected ISIS-K operation, the loading and unloading of bags and jugs of water into his vehicle, and the proximity of his car to the airport was enough for the Biden Administration’s “over-the-horizon” protocols to seal his fate. Ahmadi’s actions to the Biden Administration were
consistent with those of a Terrorist. They are also, obviously, consistent with an international aid worker.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

These false assumptions demand answers from the Biden administration. Biden’s false bravado in his capacity to conduct “over-the-horizon” counter terrorism operations puts our Nation at risk and increases the chance that terrorist groups that we cannot see and, therefore, cannot stop, will strike our homeland from Taliban-sanctioned safe harbors in Afghanistan. It also increases the chance that American mistakes will weaken our allies’ willingness to permit U.S. operations that may kill innocent people.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Biden’s assumptions jeopardize the prestige of our military and undermine our reputation for lawful warfare earned with the service of our Nation’s young men and women. Because the White House needed a win, it declared the mistaken strike a “win,” and for weeks, defended its “over-the-horizon” strategy.

But now that we know the full story, it begs the question, what happened to the original target? Was there really a second imminent attack as the Administration claims and, if so, why did it not occur since they got the wrong guy?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM REP. MIKE TURNER

Fox News host Sean Hannity sounded off on Tuesday’s “Hannity,” claiming that President Biden has been caught in another “blatant lie” amid chaotic efforts to end the war in Afghanistan.

Hannity’s comments come on the heels of a Senate hearing with military leaders regarding the Biden administration’s handling of the crisis in Afghanistan that has left allies stranded and increased danger within the region.

“45 days since hundreds and hundreds of Americans, their families abandoned behind enemy lines. 45 days since thousands of green card holders, people eligible to be in this country legally were abandoned. 45 days since thousands of SIV (Special Immigration Visa) holders and their families were abandoned and our Afghan allies. And 40 days since Joe Biden lied to the entire world and promised to stay in Afghanistan until every single U.S. citizen was safely out of the country,” he said.

“Sadly, that wasn’t Joe Biden’s only blatant lie, because today on Capitol Hill, Biden’s top military advisers, they contradicted him over and over and over again.”

Hannity cited an interview from August between Biden and ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in which, the president claimed that the need to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan was not a recommendation that was passed forth by his advisers.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, that was not the case.

“Our so-called commander-in-chief. Remember August the 19th? He told fellow Democratic socialist George Stephanopoulos over at ABC that his military advisers did not recommend a continued US military presence in Afghanistan,” Hannity said. “According to everyone that testified today on Capitol Hill under oath, they say Joe Biden was lying.”

Hannity also claimed that Biden’s comments, stating that he was not advised of the need to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan, was not the “only lie we learned today,” asserting that the president was “less truthful” about America’s anti-terror capabilities as well as the likelihood of a government collapse in Afghanistan.

Hannity attributed Biden’s actions or lack thereof to his desire to “brag” about spearheading the successful end of America’s longest war.

“Joe Biden continued to rush through his botched and very preventable withdrawal anyway because Joe wanted to brag that he successfully ended America’s longest war.”

Hannity went on to call out Gen. Mark Milley over a part of his testimony where he discussed giving China a heads up if former President Trump attempted an unlikely military attack.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“According to the allegations – and Milley even tried to defend them today – Milley promised communist China, our sworn enemy, a hostile regime in two secret phone calls. He would give them a heads up if then-President Trump decided to attack,” Hannity said. 

“Under oath, Milley’s response was at best, shifty, although at one point he just pretty much outright admits that, yeah, he would give them a heads up,” he added.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said military advisers were “split” on whether to maintain a presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, despite testimony from top officials Tuesday who were consistent in their recommendations to keep at least 2,500 troops in the region. 

Psaki, during the White House press briefing, fielded questions from reporters after Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and head of U.S. Central Command Gen. Kenneth McKenzie testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that they recommended the United States maintain a presence of at least 2,500 U.S. service members in Afghanistan. 

MILLEY, MCKENZIE SAY THEY RECOMMENDED 2,500 TROOPS STAY IN AFGHANISTAN, AFTER BIDEN CLAIMS HE WAS NEVER TOLD

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin went on to testify: “Their input was received by the president and considered by the president for sure.” 

Biden and White House officials have said repeatedly that no military leaders advised him to leave a small military presence behind, with the president, himself, telling ABC News in August that “no one” recommended a 2,500 troop presence that he could “recall.”  

Psaki, referring back to the transcript of the ABC News interview, quoted George Stephanopoulos’ question about whether military advisers wanted him to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. 

“No they didn’t. It was split. That wasn’t true. It was split,” Psaki said, quoting from the president’s response to Stephanopoulos. 

Biden was asked again about whether advisers recommended maintaining a 2,500 troop presence. 

Psaki, again reading Biden’s response from the transcript, said: “No, no one said that to me that I can recall.” 

“There was a range of viewpoints, as was evidenced by their testimony, presented to the president and presented to his national security team, as would be expected, as he asked for – he asked for a clear-eyed – he asked them not to sugar coat it – what their recommendations were,” Psaki said. 

Psaki went on to say that it “was also clear and clear to him” that maintaining 2,500 troops “would not be a long-standing recommendation,” as it would require there to be “an escalation and increase in troops” – something, Psaki said, the president was “not willing” to do.

Psaki maintained that had the president decided to listen to advisers’ recommendations, the U.S., later “would have had to increase the number of troops, would have been at war with the Taliban, we would have more U.S. casualties.” 

MILLEY SAYS RESIGNING WOULD BE ‘INCREDIBLE ACT OF POLITICAL DEFIANCE,’ UNDER COTTON PRESSURE

“There are some who felt we should have still done that,” she said. “That is not the decision the president made. It is up to the commander in chief who makes those decisions.” 

When pressed again on the conversations, Psaki said they “don’t happen in black and white or like you’re in the middle of a movie.” 

“These conversations are about a range of options, about what the risk assessments are about every decision, and, of course, there are individuals who come forward with a range of recommendations on what the path forward looks like,” Psaki said, noting she would not go into “detail” of the private conversations advisers had with the president. 

“Ultimately, regardless of the advice, it is his decision,” Psaki said. “He is the commander in chief. He is the president. He makes the decisions about what is in the national interest, and he believed we should end the war.” 

Psaki, again, stressed that the president “made clear the advice was split.” 

“I think the American people should know the president is always going to welcome a range of advice, he asked for candor and directness… he is not looking for a bunch of yes men and women,” Psaki said. “Ultimately, he is going to have to make the decision about what is in best interest of the United States.” 

She added: “If there is conflicting advice given, by necessity, some people’s advice will not be taken.” 

Psaki’s comments come after McKenzie testified that he recommended a presence of 2,500 troops remain in Afghanistan. McKenzie said he made a similar recommendation in the fall of 2020 under the Trump administration, which also had intentions to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, saying, at the time, he recommended the U.S. maintain at least 4,000 troops.

“I also have a view that the withdrawal of those forces would lead inevitably to the collapse of the Afghan military forces and eventually the Afghan government,” McKenzie testified. 

Milley was also pressed on the matter, saying that while he would not share his “personal” recommendations made to the president, his assessment was, “back in the fall of 2020, and remained consistent throughout, that we should keep a steady state of 2,500 and it could bounce up to 3,500, maybe, something like that, in order to move toward a negotiated solution.” 

Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., pressed Milley on why he has not resigned, after Biden ignored his recommendations. 

“Senator, as a senior military officer, resigning is a really serious thing – it’s a political act – if I’m resigning in protest,” Milley said. “My job is to provide advice – my statutory responsibility is to provide legal advice or best military advice to the president, and that’s my legal requirement. That’s what the law is.” 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Milley added that the president “doesn’t have to agree with the advice,” and said he “doesn’t have to make those decisions just because we’re generals.” 

“It would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer to just resign because my advice is not taken,” Milley said. “This country doesn’t want generals figuring out what orders we are going to accept and do or not. That’s not our job.” 

He added, on a personal note, that “my dad didn’t get a choice to resign at Iwo Jima, and those kids at Abbey Gate don’t get a choice to resign.” 

“I’m not going to turn my back – they can’t resign,” Milley said. “So I’m not going to resign. There’s no way.” 

“If the orders are illegal, we’re in a different place,” Milley said. “But if the orders are legal from civilian authority, I intend to carry them out.” 

Austin, Milley and McKenzie’s testimony comes nearly a month after the Biden administration, on Aug. 31, withdrew all U.S. military assets from the region after having a presence there for 20 years following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. An Aug. 26 suicide bombing took the lives of 13 U.S. service members – including 11 Marines, one Navy sailor and one Army soldier. Eighteen other U.S. service members were wounded. The bombing also left more than 150 civilians dead.

PENTAGON: ‘POSSIBLE’ US WILL WORK WITH TALIBAN AGAINST ISIS-K

As the Biden administration began the withdrawal of military assets, provincial capitals across Afghanistan began to fall to the Taliban. By mid-August, the Taliban attained control of two-thirds of Afghanistan. And by the time the U.S. withdrew all U.S. troops from the country on Aug. 31, Kabul had also fallen to the Taliban. In mid-August, U.S. intelligence assessments projected the capital city could fall to the Taliban within 90 days. 

The withdrawal concluded on Aug. 31, with the U.S. evacuating more than 124,000 individuals – including 6,000 Americans.  

But administration officials admitted to leaving more than 100 American citizens behind. Administration officials, though, said their mission in Afghanistan had shifted from a military mission to a diplomatic one, with some saying they were working with the Taliban to ensure safe passage for those Americans and U.S. visa holders, as well as some Afghan allies, to evacuate the country.