for that reason, the new commander, head of the united nations peacekeeping force said his troops are on alert, ready to respond aggressively and swiftly to any flare up. >> the u.s. killed it has killed 10 isil leaders this month. they say some of linked to the attacks in paris in november. the iraqi prime minister has been reemphasizing that the recapture of ramadi was an iraqi operation. baghdad differs with washington on how long it will take to fully defeat isil. we have more from washington. >> this is an alleged isil leader with ties to the mastermind of the recent paris attacks. with plans of his own to attack other western targets. the u.s. military said it killed him in an air strike somewhere inside syria on december 24, and that he was just one of 10 isil leaders targeted this month. >> our ability to dismantle their facilitation net works, our ability to dismantle their ground command and control, our ability to take away some of their enforcers, executioners and extortionists, that eats away at their ability to in still fear. >> the obama administration talked about atta

and for that reason the new commander, the head of the united nations peacekeeping force here said thatis troops are on alert. they're ready to respond aggressively and swiftly to any flareups. >> the north korean official has been killed in a car crash. they were propering kim yang gon's death. >> very few details have been released surrounding the car crash that killed kim yang gon. >> kim yang gom and deputy to the secret people's assembly of the people's republic of korea died at 6:15 on december 29 at the age of 73. kim yang gon was north korea's most senior officials. he was a negotiator that helped to create talks between south korea. the south korean government has paid tribute to his skill and hard work during those talks. >> we offer our condolences over the death of kim yang gom who worked with south korea to achieve a meaningful agreement in the talks held in august. >> kim yang gon was north korea's leader kim jong-un's closest comrade and revolutionary partner. but his death has raised questions about what is happening inside north korea's secretive government. south korea

has come back on the streets in recent weeks, too, taking over some of the united states peacekeepers' patrol. national forcesor the ones who know nair neighborhood, their soeshthz, towns and those thought to be holding weapons. the international community has impressive resources but the national forces can gather precise information much faster. belows stopping cars on a daily basis. streets like this mace making people feel safer but even if the election passes pooefl the long-term statementy of the country could say whoever wins could form an inclusive government. >> that means sectarian divides that have turned children into soldiers. there are thousands more young, small hands holding weapons. the more they are occupied with gang and not war. >> central african republic. still ahead for you on al jazeera, separate change the american dream: now, there are complaints of abuse as mexico stops migrants trying to reach the united states. ♪ new york's pretmetropolitan oa is attracting a different kind of talent. >>> well, back. you are watchingays. a recap the top stories now. the interim head of the syrian

the united nations has more than 100,000 troops deployed in peacekeeping operations around the world. the approximate cost of deploying these forcesis $8 billion per year, which, of course, is a -- a small fraction of what we spend in our own national defense budget. our share of these costs is less than $3 billion. a small fraction, again, and some illustrious -- illustrative figures were cited by senator cardin. a small fraction of what it would cost to deploy united states forces on similar missions. this is not a trivial argument. in today's world and with the high cost of deploying u.s. forces to overseas missions, clearly it is an important advantage for us to know that we have considerably less expensive options available to us regarding whose forces might be available to carry out an intervention we deem to be in our interests. second, the "boots on the ground" argument, this, of course, is an argument related to financial cost. just as we benefit from the lower cost of u.n. peacekeeping budget as compared to our own defense spending, we also do not deploy our own combat forces to these situations. this is a huge benefit.

united nations peacekeeping has protected innocent civilians with 120,000 police personnel currently serving as part of 16 missions on four continents, u.n. peacekeepers now represent the largest deployed military forcein the world. there are more u.n. peacekeeping missions today because peacekeepers are being asked to do more in increasingly dangerous, remote and deadly operational environments. we need to recognize this and make sure that the united nations and the troops contributing countries are given peacekeepers who are placed in harm's way the protective equipment, training, support that they deserve. peacekeepers themselves are often seen as legitimate targets for attack by extremist groups and others. we saw that recently in the horrific attacks in mali where terrorists linked to al qaeda killed 20 people including an american from maryland. the u.s. peacekeeping mission in mali has suffered 42 fatalities at the hands of the militants since january 2013. we know the peacekeeping is a cost-effective tool when compared to other military options. the budget only makes up 0.5 percent of the world's total military expenditures. i think this is a particularly important moment considering we are d

first, with respect to cost, united nations has more than 100,000 troops deployed in peacekeeping operations around the world. today. the approximate cost of deploying these forces is $8 billion per year. which, of course, is a -- a small fraction of what we spend in our own national defense budget. our share of these costs is less than $3 billion. a small fraction, again, and some ill lus strous figures were cited by senator cardin. a small fraction of what it would cost to deploy united states forces on similar missions. this is not a trivial argument. in today's world and with the high cost of deploying u.s. forces to overseas missions clearly it is an important advantage for us to know that we are considerably less expensive options available to us regarding whose forces might be available to carry out an intervention we deem to be in our interest. second, the boots on the ground argument. this, of course, is an argument related to financial costs just as we benefit from the lower cost of u.n. peacekeeping budgets as compared to our own defense spending we also do not deploy our own combat forces to these situations. this is a huge benefit. it is hard to ima

united nations peacekeeping has managed to protect hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians with more than 120,000 military and police personnel. currently serving as part of 16 missions on four continents, they now represent the largest employed military force in the world. there are more u.n. peacekeeping missions today because peacekeepers are being asked to do more. in increasingly dangerous remote and deadly operational environments. we need to recognize this and make sure that the united nations and troops contribute in countries are given peacekeepers placed in harm's way for protective equipment training support that they deserve. the peacekeepers themselves are often seen as legitimate targets for attack by extremist groups and others. we saw that recently in malley work terrorists linked to al qaeda killed 20 people including an american from maryland. peacekeeping missions has suffered 42 fatalities at the hands of militants it's january. we know that it is a cost-effective tool when compared to other military options. the u.n. annual peacekeeping budget only makes up about .5% of the total military expenditures. i think this is a particularly important moment considering we are debating the omnibus in dealing with fiscal issues o

first with respect to cost, united nations has more than 100,000 troops deployed in peacekeeping operations around the world today. the approximate cost of deploying these forces $8 billion per year, which, of course, is a -- a small fraction of what we spend in our own national defense budget. our share of these costs is less than $3 billion. a small fraction, again, and some illustrative figures were cited by senator cardin. a small fraction of what it would cost to deploy united states forces on similar missions. this is not a trivial argument. in today's world and with the high cost of deploying u.s. forces to overseas missions, clearly it is an important advantage for us to know that we have considerably less expensive options available to us regarding whose forces might be available to carry out an intervention we deem to be in our interests. second, the boots on the ground argument. this, of course, is an argument related to financial costs. just as we benefit from the lower cost of u.n. peacekeeping budgets as compared to our own defense spending we also do not deploy our own combat forces to these situations. this is a huge benefit. it is hard to imag