AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A grand jury in Houston decided on Tuesday not to indict a police officer for the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man in a case that has been placed into a national debate about the role race plays in police interactions with the public.

After months of testimony, the grand jury decided not to indict Juventino Castro, who was off duty and working a private security job at a strip mall when he fatally shot Jordan Baker, 26, in January, law enforcement officials said.

Castro, who was in his police uniform at the time of the incident, said he confronted Baker on suspicion of being a burglar targeting the mall. After a struggle, Baker charged at the officer, who fired once, Castro's lawyers said.

Baker's mother said Castro saw her son, who was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, as a criminal based on his race and clothing, local media reported.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson expressed sympathy for the Baker family and said: "I know they are disappointed, but the grand jury's decision means they found that there was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed," the Houston Chronicle reported.

The grand jury decision in Houston follows a separate grand jury decision last month not to indict a white police officer in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, a decision that sparked violent street protests and raised questions about race relations in the United States.

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz; Editing by Eric Beech)

Iraqi security officers stand guard outside of the Virgin Mary Chaldean church in the Karrada neighbourhood of the capital Baghdad on December 21, 2014. Sabah Arar/AFP/Getty Images

BAGHDAD (AP) — A suicide bomber detonated his payload among a group of pro-government Sunni militiamen near the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 24 people.

The attacker mingled with the militiamen as they gathered at a military base in the town of Madain, about 20 kilometers (14 miles) south of Baghdad, to receive their monthly paychecks, two police officers said. At least 15 of the dead were Sunni militiamen and the rest were soldiers, while 55 others were wounded, they said.

The Sunni militias, known as Sahwa or Awakening Councils, were formed at the height of Iraq's sectarian fighting in 2006 and 2007, and allied with U.S. troops against al-Qaida in Iraq, a precursor to the Islamic State extremist group. They are viewed as traitors by Sunni extremists fighting to overthrow the Shiite-led government.

In another attack, four civilians were killed and seven wounded when a bomb tore through an outdoor market in the town of Youssifiyah, 20 kilometers (12 miles) south of Baghdad, a police officer said.

Four medical officials confirmed the casualty figures. All officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release information to the media.

No one immediately claimed responsibility for Wednesday's bombings, but they bore the hallmarks of the Islamic State group, which captured large swaths of western and northern Iraq in a summer blitz.

BERKELEY, Mo. (AP) — Violent protests broke out in suburban St. Louis after another black 18-year-old was fatally shot by a white police officer.

St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar said the officer was questioning the 18-year-old and another man about a theft late Tuesday at a convenience store in Berkeley when the young man pulled a 9mm handgun on him. The officer stumbled backward but fired three shots, one of which struck the victim, Belmar said.

Berkeley is just a few miles from Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer fatally shot Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old, on Aug. 9. Brown's death sparked weeks of sometimes violent demonstrations and a grand jury's decision to not charge Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting has spurred a nationwide movement to protest police brutality.

Belmar declined to name the 18-year-old killed in Berkeley, but a woman at the scene told reporters she was his mother and identified him as Antonio Martin. Belmar said he was 18 years old and black.

The 34-year-old white police officer, a six-year veteran of the Berkeley Police Department, is on administrative leave pending an investigation, Belmar said.

"He will carry the weight of this for the rest of his life, certainly for the rest of his career," Belmar said. "So there are no winners here."

Police shoot dead 18-year-old black male near Ferg …Play video

Police released surveillance video from the parking lot outside the store. The nearly two-minute clip shows two young men leaving the store at about the time a police car rolls up. The officer gets out and speaks with them. About a minute-and-a-half later, the video appears to show one of the men raising his arm, though what he is holding is difficult to see because they were several feet from the camera. Belmar said it was a 9mm handgun.

The other man ran away, and police are searching for him.

It was the third fatal shooting of a black suspect by a white police officer in the St. Louis area since Brown was killed. Kajaime Powell, 25, was killed Aug. 9 after approaching St. Louis officers with a knife. Vonderrit Myers Jr., 18, was fatally shot Oct. 8 after allegedly shooting at a St. Louis officer.

Each shooting has been met by protests, and a crowd quickly gathered late Tuesday and early Wednesday in Berkeley. The demonstration involving up to 300 people turned violent.

More than 50 police officers, some in riot gear, responded. Video showed some wrestling with protesters. Belmar said officers used pepper spray but not tear gas. Four people were arrested on charges of assaulting officers.

View gallery

Police try to control a crowd Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2014, on the lot of a gas station following a shoo …

Belmar said three explosive devices, possibly fireworks, were tossed near gas pumps. Some protesters threw rocks and bricks. One officer was hit by a brick and treated for facial cuts. Another was treated for a leg injury sustained as he tried to get away from one of the explosives.

The protest spilled to a neighboring convenience store where a man in a hoodie set a fire inside the store. The fire was quickly put out, but the glass door was shattered.

Orlando Brown, 36, of nearby St. Charles was among the protesters.

"I understand police officers have a job and have an obligation to go home to their families at the end of the night," he said. "But do you have to treat every situation with lethal force? ... It's not a racial issue, or black or white. It's wrong or right."

Brown said he was pepper-sprayed during the protest and that his friend was arrested for failing to disperse.

View gallery

Police try to control a crowd Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2014, on the lot of a gas station following a shoo …

Toni Martin, Antonio Martin's mother, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that her son was with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting. The video did not appear to show a female with the two young men.

Belmar said the 18-year-old had a considerable criminal record in the less than two years since he turned 17, with three assault charges, armed robbery, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon.

The chief said some protesters questioned why the officer couldn't use pepper spray or a stun gun.

"Frankly, that's unreasonable," Belmar said. "When we had somebody pointing a gun at a police officer, there's not a lot of time."

Berkeley has body cameras and dashboard cameras. The officer wasn't wearing his body camera, Belmar said. The dashboard camera activates when the red lights are on, and they were not on at the convenience store.

Belmar said the body of the young man remained on the scene for about two hours. After Brown died in August, the fact that his body remained on the street for more than four hours drew widespread criticism. Belmar said two hours is fairly typical as police gather evidence, and he said interference from protesters may have prolonged the situation in Berkeley.

Only 15 percent of US active-duty service members approve of President Obama's job as commander-in-chief, according to an annual Military Times survey. What's behind American troop dissatisfaction?

If President Obama's approval ratings have slipped with the general population, they have plummeted to record lows within one segment of the population: the US military.

Only 15 percent of active-duty service members approve of Mr. Obama's job as commander-in-chief, according to anannual Military Times survey, and more than half – 55 percent – say they disapprove of his job. The president has never been a very popular commander-in-chief among troops, but these numbers reflect a record low for Obama. His first year in office he enjoyed a relatively high 35-percent approval rating.

Compare that to his approval rating in the general population, which is far higher, though still slumping: In the most recent CNN/ORC poll, Obama had a 44 percent approval rating among Americans.

Recommended: Are you smarter than a US Marine? Take the recruitment quiz

"[O]ne thing is clear," writes the Military Times. "He is a deep[ly] unpopular commander in chief among the troops."

Why?

Obama's sinking popularity among the troops can be traced to a number of factors: budget cuts, falling troop morale, frustrations over the Obama administration's foreign policy, gay and gender equity initiatives within the military, and US political leaders in general.

According to the Military Times' poll, troops are more unhappy under Obama than they were under previous commanders-in-chief. Some 91 percent of active duty service members were satisfied with their quality of life in 2009. This year, that figure dropped to 56 percent.

One reason: More than half of American troops believe they are underpaid today. In 2009, 87 percent of service members rated their pay and allowance as good or excellent; today, just 44 percent do so.

For good reason, reports the Military Times.

"Congress just approved, at the request of the Pentagon and the White House, a 1 percent basic pay raise the for the troops next year," writes the publication, attributing it in part, to sequestration. "[That's] the second straight year of such a raise, constituting the two smallest annual increases in the 41-year history of the all-volunteer force."

Events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rise of the Islamic State, have also led some in the military to challenge Obama's foreign policy.

His decision to remove all troops from Iraq in 2011 helped lead to the rise of the militant group ISIS, according to some military experts, who see Obama as a weak leader in foreign policy. The rise of ISIS forced Obama to return US troops to the region, another unpopular decision among troops. When asked whether the US should send a large force of combat troops back to Iraq to fight Islamic State militants, 70 percent of survey respondents said, 'No.'

Similarly, the report found troops were unhappy with the outcome of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which they blame their commander-in-chief.

"The percentage of troops who feel the war in Afghanistan ultimately will be viewed as a success has taken a nosedive since 2007," writes the Military Times. "Similarly, only 30 percent of respondents feel the eight-year Iraq War was a success.

"The pessimism about Iraq is especially understandable; troops have spent years listening to senior leaders tell them Iraq was emerging as a stable democracy, its army a reliable ally in the fight against Islamic extremism. Just a few years later, both notions turned out to be spectacularly wrong."

Obama has also pushed through major social changes in a traditional institution unused to social upheaval, including allowing gays to openly serve in the military, ending the ban on women in combat troops, and cracking down on sexual assault and harassment.

"For Obama's supporters, the cultural changes he's overseeing are on a level with President Truman's 1948 order that desegregated the military and put it at the forefront of the national push for racial equality," writes the Military Times. But for some in the US military, the wave of changes to deep-seated policies and attitudes can be jarring," concludes the report, adding, "[T]o his critics, his moves amount to heavy-handed social engineering that erode deep-seated traditions and potentially undermine good order and discipline."

But Obama has reason not to take the nosediving approval rating too personally: It turns out his unpopularity among troops comes with falling support for and trust in both major political parties.

According to the poll, nearly half of active duty service members surveyed said they believe both the Republican and Democratic parties have become less supportive of military issues. Only 12 percent said both parties “have the armed forces’ best interests at heart,” according to the Military Times.

The report found US troops, like the general population, are increasingly frustrated with gridlocked congressional politics.

As Army Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Pettigrew told the Military Times, "It seems like all the [congressional] debate now is completely disconnected from reality. They don't really seem to care about how their decisions impact us."

Related:

5 issues Obama tried to tackle on his own in 2014

The president used his executive powers to reshape policy on immigration, climate change, and U.S.-Cuba relations.
Where he stumbled

>

The U.S. is increasingly coming to grips with the terrible costs of the post-9/11 war on terror that has gone on for over a decade – with no end in sight.

American casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq total 6,845 men and women, according to the latest official tally, while more than a million troops were wounded in both wars. The Senate Intelligence Committee recently released a startling 528-page document that chronicled the CIA’s often brutal and secretive tactics in interrogating terrorism suspects that for many ran counter to American values.

Related: The New U.S. Price Tag for the War Against ISIS: $40 Billion a Year

Now the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has provided a new accounting of the cost of wars in the Middle East between 2001 and 2014 – interventions that have been more expensive than the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991 all rolled into one – and adjusted for inflation.

WHY THIS MATTERS

The more we spend on fighting terrorism and stabilizing the Mideast, the less we invest in developing our own country and helping its people. Infrastructure, technology, education and other advances are taking a back seat to a war without end.

View gallery

The government has spent $1.6 trillion on warfare since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington – a staggering sum that works out to about $337 million a day every day for the past 13 years. By contrast, the U.S. spent $341 billion of inflation-adjusted dollars waging war on North Korea between 1950 and 1953, $38 billion on the Vietnam War between 1965 and 1975, and $102 billion on the first Persian Gulf War.

This new total is about half a trillion dollars more than when the CRS last tried estimating the overall cost in 2010. The entire tab for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom and related military action was placed on the government’s credit card. In other words, the money going to the war through a special “Overseas Contingency Account” was added directly to the federal debt.

“All of these figures do not take into account the long-term consequences, in terms of post-traumatic stress disorder or long-term veterans’ bills,” said Gordon Adams, a professor of international relations and military history at American University. “The costs go on. Iraq and Afghanistan will end up being the gift that keeps on giving because – as we did with Vietnam – we will be living with the consequences for many, many years.”

Related: Can the U.S. Defeat ISIS Without a War Powers Deal?

The $1.1 trillion omnibus spending package passed by Congress and signed by President Obama sets aside $554 billion for defense spending through next Sept. 30, including $490 billion for running the Pentagon and buying weapons and $64 billion for the war effort. That total represents an $18 billion decrease from fiscal 2014 spending, according to the Military Times, reflecting Obama’s drawdown of troops from Afghanistan as he tries – not always successfully – to wind down that episode of the war on terrorism.

View gallery

An explosion rocks Syrian city of Kobane during a reported suicide car bomb attack by the militants …

The new CRS report found that slightly more than half the $1.6 trillion in total spending went to military operations in Iraq, where allied forces toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime and then waged war for years in a desperate effort to prop up a new government. An additional $686 billion was spent on U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, which began with U.S. forces seeking to hunt down Osama bin Laden and others behind the 9/11 attacks.

The wars seem to go on forever – though overall U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq began to decline at the tail end of President George W. Bush’s second term and early on in the Obama administration. Over time, annual war costs declined from a peak of $195 billion in FY2008 to $95 billion enacted in FY2014, the CRS said.

Under the latest timetable outlined by Obama last May, the 32,000 American troops now in Afghanistan will drop to 9,800 after this year. That number would then be cut in half by the end of 2015. If all goes as planned, there would be only a small residual force to protect the embassy in Kabul by the end of 2016. At the height of American involvement, in 2011, the U.S. had 101,000 troops there.

Related: McCain Moves Center Stage on War and Foreign Policy

The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq began in December 2007 with the end of the so-called troop surge. It was completed by December 2011, which technically brought an end to the Iraq War. The number of U.S. military forces in Iraq peaked at 170,300 in November 2007. Yet with security conditions deteriorating, U.S. forces returned last summer under a new Iraq Status of Force agreement.

View gallery

U.S. soldiers from Grim Company of the 3rd Cavalry Regiment stand guard near an Afghan police checkp …

With al-Qaeda and the Taliban still a deadly force in Afghanistan and ISIS claiming vast swaths of Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration and Congress are bracing for what may be a much longer engagement in the Middle East.

“It’s like we cannot get out of there,” said Adams, the military expert. “The entire Afghan army and police force rely on U.S. and other international dollars for their salaries. And the Iraqis are going to rely on us for aerial bombardments to deal with the ISIS crisis.”

Adams added, “This long-term crisis is in part a direct outgrowth of the U.S.’s decision particularly to take down Saddam Hussein. We’re going to live with that for God knows how many years because it created an instability in the heart of the region that is now spilling over everywhere.”

Related: The War Against ISIS Will Explode Our Nation’s Debt

Last week, a Pentagon official said that since August, the government has spent more than $1 billion on airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and parts of Syria. The administration also said it was deploying another 1,300 troops to Iraq as advisers, bringing to 3,000 the total number of U.S. advisory troops in Iraq.

Obama has vowed not to send in ground troops to try to weed out or destroy ISIS, but Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and many other leading Republicans say it will be impossible to defeat ISIS with airstrikes alone.