Defense hawks and political opportunists are sure to decry the Pentagon’s recent announcement that it aims to reduce the Army’s troop strength to the lowest levels since before World War II. However, a closer examination of the Defense Department’s intentions yield different conclusions than those proclaimed across headlines today, some more accurate than others.

Pundits are already framing this expected drawdown as a strategic and moral retreat. But even a cursory look at the actual numbers shows that more caution must be taken when describing the Pentagon’s plans in this way. Yes, the expected numbers are the lowest in 74 years, but our post-Afghanistan numbers would still be roughly double our pre-WW2 numbers according to the Pentagon’s plan. In fact, the difference between our current levels and the proposed levels, a difference of 72-82,000, would be significantly less than the difference between our pre-WW2 numbers and the proposed numbers, a difference of 173-183,000.

Where many reporters, editors, and bloggers are making their mistake is in their assumption that a drawdown to the lowest numbers since the pre-WW2 numbers equates to a drawdown to the pre-WW2 level, and that’s simply not true. In 1940 the Army’s troops levels stood at 267,000. The following year that number shot up to over 1 million and nearly quintupled by the end of the war before coming back down again, although it never dropped below 480,000 thereafter. But even in the Pentagon’s proposed new troop strength level for the Army, the numbers are still nearly double the pre-WW2 level.

So which outlets botched their rapid-response interpretation of the Pentagon’s troop strength plans in their headlines and articles? CNN’s blog got it wrong in both, while Fox News, NBC News, and Time’s blog got wrong in the headline but self-corrected in the article text. The Hill had a headline focusing on the impact of the Pentagon budget on benefits, but incorrectly characterized the troop strength reduction further down in the body of the article.

And which outlets got it right? Politico nailed it, as did the Washington Post and the Associated Press, which takes the prize for the best context on the numbers, given that it was the only major piece I could find that simultaneously disclosed what the actual pre-WW2 numbers were for comparison.

While the erring journos should get a pass on intent here (they surely did not mean to mischaracterize the numbers, but likely just failed to understand the to/since distinction), expect to see others in the pundit class jumping all over these inaccurate headlines to score points against the White House.

The media, like academics, are under intense pressure to publish or perish, although at a much more insanely rapid pace. There’s often little time to dig into data, analyze announcements, research background, and develop context before the headlines and stories must be generated and posted. So by the time that level of thought and context can be put into analyzing the important events we cover, the dizzying partisan spin of the insta-posts has become fact in the minds of most of America.

Congress is at risk of failing America’s veterans. With single-digit days left in the year’s congressional calendar, several important pieces of legislation to the veteran community remain on the floor of each chamber awaiting a final vote. House and Senate leaders must summon a sense of non-partisan duty and prioritize veterans’ policy needs before adjourning for the year and going home.

Back in 2009, the veteran community wisely fought for, and won, advance funding for the portion of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ annual budget that covers the VA health care system. This bold move was widely considered a smart insurance policy to protect care and services for veterans during years in which Congress fails to meet its budget deadlines. This year, veterans organizations and a strong bipartisan coalition of lawmakers have emphasized the immediate need to pass the Putting Veterans Funding First Act in order to fund the remaining fourteen percent of the VA’s budget in advance.

Although support for advance appropriations for the entire VA gained momentum long before the most recent government shutdown, that event’s negative impact on the department and on veterans drove home the need to get this new legislation enacted immediately. During the shutdown, veterans disability claims processing was significantly slowed, help desks were unavailable and VA service centers around the country were shuttered, even as VA medical offices continued to operate smoothly.

Perhaps more disturbingly, veterans around the country both young and old began to wonder if their next disability, pension or education benefits payments would actually get paid out on time. Fortunately, the shutdown ended before the VA may have had to default on paying out the compensation and benefits checks on which millions of veterans rely every month, but the threat and realistic possibility alone were enough to cause intense anxiety and unnecessary stress on veterans and their families.

The administration and the VA had remained quiet prior to the shutdown on the new bills making their way through Congress that would advancing the VA budget in full, even though they have long publicly lauded and appreciated the advance appropriations that the VA’s health care system receives. But after the shutdown, a VA spokesperson unexpectedly announced that the department’s position was now that its full budget should not be advance funded because veterans and the VA would be best served if Congress funded the entire federal budget on time every year.

While certainly correct, this position is also naive and idealistic. The reality is that the added budgetary buffer will help insulate the VA and the veterans it serves from having to rely on Congress to always agree on a comprehensive federal budget in a timely manner.

Beyond this critical priority, several other important veterans-related legislative packages are primed and ready for an immediate vote on the floor of both chambers of Congress. In the Senate, the Committee on Veterans Affairs has passed two major omnibus bills and a range of additional free-standing legislation. One of those omnibus packages, passed out of committee back in July, includes a version of the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act, which is another major priority this year for a broad coalition of veterans organizations, including Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. The House version of this bill passed out of its Committee on Veterans Affairs in early June with strong bipartisan support and still needs a vote this year.

The House also has a series of additional veterans bills that are awaiting scheduling and that are low-hanging fruit for pre-adjournment action. These include several bills that would provide additional resources and assistance to help the VA try to meet its ambiguously operationalized goal of ending the disability claims backlog by 2015, which just last week rose again for the first time in 22 weeks.

And finally, the Senate absolutely must do right by the men and women who serve in uniform and their families by finishing the defense authorization bill, including allowing a vote on the Military Justice Improvement Act. If it does not, it will be the first time in more than a half-century that Congress has failed to provided the Pentagon with its annual spending and policy authorizations. To make matters worse, it would be doing so while American service men and women are still at war in Afghanistan.

There is much more that the Congress can and should do by the end of this year, including staying on the job through December 20th. But at the very least, party leaders in the House and the Senate have an obligation vote on and finish these critical priorities. The military, veteran and defense community is issuing a call to duty to Congress, and it is these minimum expectations for which we all have a duty to all hold lawmakers accountable.

This article originally appeared in Defense One on December 11, 2022 as ‘Why Congress Should Fully Fund the VA in Advance.’

In a speech last night before the Anti-Defamation League’s centennial meeting in New York, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that he would be taking “immediate action” regarding a handful of states’ open rebellion against new court-ordered federal policies recognizing the legitimacy of certain same-sex marriages. However, the immediate actions he announced were less forceful and conclusive than one might have expected given the administration’s stated commitment to treating the spouses and families of gay and lesbian troops equally.

The two actions Secretary Hagel announced were 1. directing National Guard Bureau Chief General Frank Grass to meet with the Adjutants General of the rebelling states and 2. expecting those states to comply with both Pentagon policy and federal law. But without any concrete consequences, the Secretary should not expect a change in those states’ behavior.

Background guidance provided by the Pentagon in advance of the Secretary’s speech claimed that a total of nine states so far have declared varying levels of intent not to comply with the new Defense Department policies on troops who are in legal same-sex unions. Within those nine states are 114 National Guard offices that are refusing to process federal benefits paperwork for those spouses. Instead, some of these states are directing military families to drive hundreds of miles to facilities on federally-owned land to claim the benefits to which they are entitled.

The situation in Texas is particularly disturbing. The language the state has used to justify blocking federally-funded employees of the Texas National Guard from issuing federal ID cards to same-sex spouse residents hints at the possibility of extending that rationale to other federal benefits and privileges over which the state has operational control, including access to bases, facilities, and even family support activities.

The administration has a key opportunity but a narrow window to address these states’ rebellious behavior. But weak reactions, no matter how immediate, and a reliance on expectations and hope will not be sufficient to ensure the preeminence of federal policy, or of equality.