According to multiple studies from both inside and outside the Department of Defense, only one-third of military members meet the recommended minimum guidelines of seven hours of sleep. The military hates sleep, and it is breaking the force.

The connection between sleep and physical performance is generally understood, but sleep’s relationship with mental health, stress management, and cognitive function is less recognized. Slow-wave, or deep sleep, and rapid eye movement, or REM, sleep, are key to restorative rest. During these cycles, the brain recovers from its daily workload, prioritizes information, commits lessons to memory, and dumps non-essential data.

A well-rested service member learns faster, is more resilient to stress, and has greater cognitive function compared to one with low quality (not enough slow-wave or REM sleep) or a low quantity of sleep. In fact, a recent study of more than 5,000 Army soldiers showed that soldiers had lower body fat percentage, exercised more per week, and were significantly less likely to use tobacco compared to those who slept less than seven hours a night. Essentially, the military gets a better service member when they are well rested.

While the benefits of sleep are clear, the health risks associated with a lack of sleep are also profound. A Veterans Health Administration study of recent combat veterans showed that 72% reported low sleep quality. Those who reported low sleep quality had a five times higher risk for post-traumatic stress disorder, nine times higher risk of major depressive disorder, and six times higher rate of suicidal ideations. Another study of recent veterans linked poor sleep efficiency and quality with greater psychological distress. This means veterans or service members are not only more likely to become depressed or have suicidal ideations, but they are also less able to manage the psychological distress associated with those conditions.

Additionally, the consequences of sleep deficiency also compound over time. Sleep debt is accrued through consecutive nights of poor sleep. The more sleep debt, the more pronounced the repercussions in physical performance, cognitive function and psychological resiliency. As the body reacts to a lack of sleep, it will prioritize critical life functions over non-essential tasks. Reaction time will increase, immune function will decrease, and emotional control is stunted leading to poor decision-making. As a result, service members are more prone to make mistakes, some of which could be fatal.

To address the impacts listed above, senior leaders must first appreciate the necessity of sleep and place a much higher priority on recovery. That includes training leaders at all levels on the importance of sleep, investing in biometric tracking technology to help service members understand their individual sleep metrics and empowering junior leaders to establish a culture that values sleep.

This does not mean that the military can only work an eight-hour day. The nature of war and its physical and psychological toll has not changed. However, leaders should limit the exposure of sleep deprivation, train service members how to recover from a lack of sleep and provide the time needed regain the cognitive function necessary before starting high risk events.

In a world that incentivizes toughness, selflessness, and perseverance, sleep quickly becomes a casualty of the culture. While the scientific and sports communities understand the essential nature of sleep to aid in performance, health, and overall recovery, the military maintains its course believing toughness can overcome the necessity of sleep.

In closing, the benefits of proper sleep are as constructive as the impacts of poor sleep are destructive. While the military contends with mental health issues and a rising suicide rate across all components, leaders are failing to address an underlying cause. No amount of resiliency training can overcome a chronically under-rested force. The mental health trends seen today will continue until the military sheds its war on sleep.

Maj. Dave Nixon is an active duty Army Officer currently assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps Headquarters at Fort Liberty, North Carolina. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

But how does one know?

It is a fair question, when less than a month after Singh’s statement the Iran-backed Houthis attacked several commercial vessels in the Red Sea, and another attempted an attack on U.S. troops by another Iranian proxy, the militias in Iraq.

Deterrence is traditionally understood as the demonstration of a capability and the communication of intent to use it.

What would happen if Congress stopped supporting allies under siege?

Although the Iranian regime and its proxies clearly continue to launch attacks on U.S. troops and assets — and at Israel — one can argue that major escalation has, so far, been largely avoided since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7. Escalation, in this case, has been strategically deterred.

Part of that is no doubt because of the impressive capabilities the U.S. has deployed to the region, which include two carrier strike groups, a range of fighter jets, 300 troops, an Ohio-class submarine, as well as consistent ammunition and other support to Israel — all in just over a month.

It has only used force six times — on Oct. 26, Nov. 8, Nov. 12, Nov. 21, Nov. 22, and Dec. 3. All were described as “self-defense” strikes, and the latter two each killed several Iran-connected fighters. Each action was described as a response to a series of attacks on U.S. troops. And while National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan did acknowledge Iran as “the ultimate party responsible” for the Dec. 3 Houthi attack on commercial vessels, his response was to confer with regional allies about a task force to protect commercial vessels — hardly the rhetoric that would put an adversary on notice.

The Iranian regime has clearly made the calculation that a major regional escalation at the moment does not advance their interests. But their continued attacks on U.S. targets is not evidence of the persuasiveness of U.S. rhetoric and actions. There have been at least 76 attacks on U.S. forces over the last two months, which have caused injuries to at least 59 U.S. personnel. Iran-backed Houthis also shot down a U.S. drone.

Can more be done to deter not only escalation, but to stop these persistent attacks? The administration’s rhetoric may be critical here.

President Joe Biden’s administration has variously explained its approach as maintaining solidarity with Israel, preventing the conflict from spreading, operating in self-defense and, of course, achieving deterrence. Explicit statements regarding deterrence of Iran and its proxies have thus far not been included in those explanations.

In his first speech since the Oct. 7 attack, delivered on Oct. 10, Biden explained the rationale for the force posture changes in the region, noting it was “to strengthen deterrence.” Against whom? Biden explained further, “Let me say again — to any country, any organization, anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation, I have one word: Don’t.”

While it seems obvious that the country in question is Iran and the organizations alluded to are its proxies, the words “any” and “anyone” could apply to Russia, China, ISIS, or any other. Is the U.S. ready to use force against these, and if so, what do these entities “taking advantage of this situation” look like?

The Nov. 8 strike on Iranian facilities was aimed at sending a message that “the United States will defend itself, its personnel, and its interests.”

The language the Biden administration used during the second strike, which came on Oct. 26, included the following disclaimer: “These narrowly tailored strikes in self-defense were intended solely to protect and defend U.S. personnel in Iraq and Syria. They are separate and distinct from the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, and do not constitute a shift in our approach to the Israel-Hamas conflict.”

In that “separate and distinct” conflict, the statement continued, the administration urged “all state and non-state entities not to take action that would escalate into a broader regional conflict.”

Iran is not mentioned in the official statements regarding the deployment of either the USS Gerald R. Ford carrier strike group, deployed on Oct. 8, or the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group, which was deployed the following week. Both deployments were explained as measures to support Israel, and only the latter was mentioned as deploying “to deter any state or non-state actor seeking to escalate this war.”

Having focused on demonstrating capability and having used force for “self-defense,” the administration must clarify that deterrence is not only meant to prevent escalation, but to stop attacks on U.S. personnel.

This requires two steps. First, directly identify the Iranian regime as the catalyst for Oct. 7 and the regional escalation since — from Hezbollah’s attacks against Israel to the attacks on U.S. troops. America and Israel are engaged in a single regional conflict that extends far beyond Hamas in Gaza.

Next, the administration must identify to the Iranian regime the scenario that would constitute crossing a threshold — and invite a significant U.S. response — by its actions or those of its proxies.

While deterrence may be working in preventing escalation, the situation can change in an instant, as Oct. 7 demonstrated. Such an event can challenge the administration and expose miscalculation. Indeed, ambiguity often fosters tragic miscalculation.

Clarity of rhetoric can at least serve as a warning to an adversary, who, if nothing else, is certainly listening carefully.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, former deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command and former Chief of the National Guard Bureau, served for 42 years.

Jacob Olidort serves as director of research at the Gemunder Center for Defense & Strategy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, or JINSA.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

According to recent litigation, that wasn’t the case for hundreds of thousands of veterans and current service members who say they suffered auditory injuries from defective dual-ended Combat Arms Earplugs, or CAEv2.

The CAEv2 earplugs were originally manufactured by Aearo Technologies, an Indianapolis-based company that 3M acquired in 2008. For more than a decade — from 2003 to 2015 — surrounding 3M’s acquisition of Aearo, the military purchased the earplugs, which were engineered to protect soldiers from damaging noise. These kinds of earplugs were necessary to protect the ears of soldiers fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where they engaged in ground warfare amid gunfire and explosions.

Unfortunately, according to recent litigation the earplugs often came loose, exposing many troops to permanent hearing loss and/or tinnitus. In a previous settlement, 3M agreed to pay $9.1 million to resolve allegations that it knowingly sold the earplugs, without disclosing defects, to the U.S. military.

To send a message to the corporate sector and get compensation for those who suffered injuries, a class of nearly a quarter of a million plaintiffs took 3M to task in what became the largest mass tort lawsuit in American history.

Recently, the Minnesota-based 3M agreed to settle the class action suit for a total amount of $6 billion, consisting of $5 billion in stock and $1 billion in 3M stock, which would be paid out over six years until 2029. 3M did not admit liability in either this or the $9.1 million settlement.

Although every manufacturer should exercise due care and caution before it sends any product into the stream of commerce, those getting military contracts should exercise extra caution since any potential default could have exponential impacts in combat situations.

If the large class of plaintiffs accepts the settlement, each veteran could be awarded an average of about $25,000 — or more — depending on how severe their injuries are. Whatever the case, plaintiffs who accept the settlement should be able to keep the full amount of their award since compensation for physical injuries is generally tax free.

The settlement sends a strong signal to corporate America, as it follows a federal judge’s rejection of the company’s attempt to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Veterans Affairs facilities are also prohibited from recovering any part of a settlement for physical injuries or satisfy a medical lien, and also restricted from decreasing medical or disability benefits for service members who accept such awards. This means that veterans should be able to collect the settlement and continue getting whatever treatment they are entitled to under law.

While the settlement can never restore the hearing loss suffered by the plaintiffs, it is a victory for the veterans who had the tenacity to file the suit. Having confidence in the protective gear service members use when risking their lives is the least our men and women in uniform deserve. Hopefully, a judgment will soon be approved by the class and court to ensure that service members are not forced to wait for their fair share.

Our service members are one of the most valuable commodities that America has. They put themselves in harm’s way to guarantee the security of our nation. The very least we can do is make their safety a priority by ensuring they receive the equipment and training they need to succeed — and survive.

Terrence M. Andrews is a former federal prosecutor and Homeland Security senior official who served in the Bush administration. He now teaches Homeland Security Law and Policy for the Department of Education and Public Service at the University of Maryland’s Global Campus.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

Overcoming the challenge of translating military skills into civilian terms and adapting to a new work culture are formidable hurdles. Through novel programs like DOD SkillBridge, which connects transitioning service members with industry partners, and working with organizations like Hiring our Heroes, or Hire Heroes USA, America has made significant strides when it comes to veteran unemployment. This should be celebrated.

But this solution has revealed another challenge: finding meaningful employment that truly reflects veterans’ skills and abilities and paves the way for long-lasting careers.

American businesses have a tremendous opportunity to not only address the issue of underemployment among our nation’s heroes, but also benefit from their invaluable skills and experiences. By being military ready, businesses can tap into this exceptional talent pool and foster long-lasting careers.

The cost of attrition and underemployment

Research shows that underemployment disproportionately affects veterans. They are 70% more likely to step back in seniority in their first civilian jobs when compared to the roles they held in the military and are nearly 16% more likely to be underemployed than their civilian counterparts; 42% of veteran talent leave their first civilian job in one year; and 80% leave in two years, which is 10% higher than their civilian counterparts.

The cost of replacing an employee can range from one-half to two times the employee’s salary. However, research also found that 70% of the reasons for employee turnover are preventable.

Finally, a recent survey of more than 5,000 veterans and service members by Indeed and Hiring Our Heroes found that “even organizations that consider themselves ‘military-ready’ may still have work to do,” with 44% of respondents choosing not to move forward as candidates for a job because the employer’s claims of being military friendly did not meet their expectations.

The challenge becomes more exacerbated when hiring managers are eager to tackle the problem but are unsure of where to begin. When hiring managers seek assistance, they are often overwhelmed by a flood of well-intentioned advice or struggle to find tailored support from other nonprofit organizations.

These gaps open an opportunity for new solutions.

It’s time to be military ready, not just military friendly

What’s needed is targeted support for hiring managers. What’s necessary is a national focus on being military ready versus military friendly. “Military ready” may be defined as the ongoing transformation of a business to successfully attract, support, and retain diverse, military-connected talent.

Business leaders can focus on three areas of opportunities to become military ready.

1. Establish strategic intent: Executive leaders must prioritize programs that not only attract veteran talent but support their existing military-connected employees. This kind of approach mirrors the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Principles of Excellence for institutions of higher learning in which the leadership mandates broad-reaching organizational changes to ensure coverage across all areas of the business.

2. Apply customized solutions: Employers must recognize that there is no cookie-cutter solution to an effective military inclusivity program. What works at other organizations may not fit within the established culture within their own business. To do this, consider establishing a coalition of support from military-connected employees and advocates that assess the state of the inclusivity program and are empowered to affect change.

3. Seek out partnerships: Businesses should actively seek out and participate in programs or partnerships with organizations focused on supporting the military-connected community. By partnering with such organizations, businesses can gain access to valuable resources, support and guidance on how to effectively attract, support and retain military-connected employees.

If business leaders commit to this level of readiness and recognize the importance of becoming military-ready and creating a more inclusive and diverse workforce, we can make a difference for our nation’s heroes and our businesses.

Jonathan Fermin-Robbins is a decorated Army veteran and interim executive director at MilitaryConnected.org.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

With more than 33,000 veterans still without a home, the need for more transitional housing facilities becomes glaringly apparent. Transitional housing is crucial as it serves as a bridge from homelessness to permanent housing, offering a supportive and structured environment where veterans can access various rehabilitative services. These services, including financial literacy classes, assistance with VA benefits, and employment counseling, are vital in equipping veterans with the tools and skills necessary for reintegration into society.

The Housing and Urban Development/Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program, or HUD-VASH, exemplifies an effective initiative in this regard. This program combines Housing Choice Voucher, or HCV, rental assistance with comprehensive case management and supportive services, offering veterans experiencing homelessness and their families not only housing support but also access to essential services like health care, mental health treatment, substance use counseling, and more. These services are critical in assisting veterans in their recovery process and ensuring their ability to maintain stable housing within the community.

Organizations like the Veterans Empowerment Organization, or VEO, have demonstrated how effective this approach can be. With support from entities such as The Home Depot Foundation, which contribute both financially and through volunteer efforts, VEO has not only provided shelter but also fostered a sense of self-reliance and independence among veterans. This holistic approach goes beyond mere accommodation, focusing on empowering veterans to regain control over their lives and transition successfully back into the community.

Despite the successes, the persistently high number of veterans experiencing homelessness, especially in urban areas, underscores the urgent need to expand transitional housing facilities and programs. Veterans like Malcolm Harvey III, who have moved from being homeless to aiding others in similar situations, serve as a poignant reminder of the transformative power of these programs. Their experiences highlight the potential for change and the impact that a comprehensive support system can have.

State legislatures must prioritize transitional housing for veterans and allocate a more significant portion of their budgets toward these efforts. However, this initiative requires more than just funding; it demands a concerted effort and close collaboration with federal legislators. This coordination is vital to avoid redundancy and ensure that state programs complement and enhance federal efforts, rather than duplicating them.

By integrating state resources with federal programs, we can create a more efficient, effective system that truly serves the needs of our veterans. This isn’t merely an investment in housing; it’s an investment in the people who have invested their lives in our country’s security and freedom.

Governors of all 50 states need to act. The necessity for more transitional housing is not simply about fulfilling a moral obligation to those who have served our nation; it is a critical investment in the health and stability of our communities and the nation at large. Transitional housing offers more than just a temporary solution; it provides a foundation for long-term success and reintegration for veterans.

As we acknowledge and appreciate the progress made in addressing veteran homelessness, more needs to be done. The continued prevalence of this issue calls for expanding transitional housing solutions, both as an act of gratitude towards our veterans and as a necessary step towards building stronger, more resilient communities. By enhancing and increasing the availability of transitional housing, we can ensure that every veteran has the opportunity to lead a dignified, stable, and fulfilling life after service.

Michael Embrich is a veteran, former member of the secretary of Veterans Affairs’ Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans and former congressional staffer.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

The effort is designed to provide opportunities to improve health and performance outcomes for all women, including — perhaps most importantly — women in the military.

The scarcity of research on women’s health is not a new problem. In medical and human performance research, women are frequently omitted from the data. When women are included, they are regularly treated as interchangeable with men. Yet women are not small men — they have different physiological and hormonal requirements yielding distinct nutritional, injury prevention, training and recovery needs.

Now is the moment for the federal government to invest in optimizing women’s health and performance in the military. Women currently comprise 17.3% of the total active duty force, 19.2% of the officer corps, and 17% of the enlisted corps (with variation across services).

In the Post-9/11 era, more than 300,000 women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, a number comprising 11% of all deployed service members. More than 9,000 women earned Combat Action Badges in Iraq and Afghanistan — many prior to the lifting of combat job restrictions on women. What’s more, the services are increasingly turning to women as qualified military recruits in the wake of a challenging recruiting environment. Female high school students are more likely to meet the standards for military service, as they graduate high school at higher rates than their male counterparts and are less likely to have a criminal record.

The lack of research attention given to the health and performance optimization of women in the military yields suboptimal results for both the military services and women in uniform. The U.S. military observes outcome data indicating women are at higher risk for musculoskeletal injuries, particularly during basic training. The data on female service members’ injury rates has, at times, been used to justify why women should not be allowed to enter into combat roles. Yet what such information fails to capture are the ways existing policies, practices, and equipment hinder female performance optimization in the military.

For example, military-issued protective gear — including body armor — was designed for male physiologies. As such, women in uniform are subject to ill-fitting equipment, resulting in gaps in coverage and an improper balance of weight on women’s musculoskeletal frames.

Further, women in the military use oral contraceptives at higher rates than their civilian counterparts, in part to ensure that women’s natural menstrual cycles do not affect their ability to train at the same pace as their male peers. A growing body of research is examining the potential impacts of the use of oral contraceptives on the physical performance of women.

Weight standards — measured every six months, in addition to physical fitness testing standards — are associated with a prevalence of eating disorders and disordered eating among women in uniform. In an effort to meet height and weight standards based on male physiology, some women in uniform are trading away strength in order to “make tape.”

The question of the moment is not whether the challenges facing women in the military should preclude their participation, but whether and how new approaches to female-specific research on health and performance optimization might improve the readiness and lethality of our female troops.

The military need look no further than the ways in which U.S. Olympic, professional, and collegiate athletic organizations approach their research, evaluation, and protocols for individual athletes: tailored nutrition and recovery protocols, custom equipment, and training cycles that account for the impact of hormonal cycles on performance.

An improved approach to health and performance optimization research on women in the military doesn’t just benefit female service members; it fundamentally changes the paradigm of the data, metrics, training, and treatment research necessary to optimize the performance of all tactical athletes at the individual level — men and women alike.

The White House’s focus on women’s health research presents an opportunity for the entire Department of Defense to identify ways in which their own research can better harness and unleash the readiness and lethality of the growing number of women in uniform.

Katherine Kuzminski is the deputy director of studies and the director of the Military, Veterans, and Society Program at the Center for a New American Security.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

Yet, with the threat of a potential government shutdown looming, it seems as if troops and their loved ones may receive no such relief.

When does the continuing resolution expire, and how does it work?

Like many other military families, my active duty spouse and I are anxiously waiting to see if we will be pawns in the political dragnet once again.

When Congress failed to avert the longest government shutdown in history five years ago, many service members and their families absorbed the brunt of the impact. Members of the Coast Guard were advised to have garage sales to supplement their rapidly dwindling emergency funds as they worked without pay over the holiday season while lawmakers battled over the budget.

Unless Congress passes a separate bill permitting military pay to continue, mission essential personnel like service members are not paid during a government shutdown and must report to work.

While back pay is authorized, missing one or more paychecks is highly disruptive for military families struggling to maintain an already tight budget.

The government does not track military spouse unemployment rates, but surveys regularly show the spouse unemployment rate is around 20%, and many military families have difficulty making ends meet without dual incomes.

This financial strain is demonstrated by responses to the latest Military Family Lifestyle Survey conducted by Blue Star Families, a nonprofit organization that advocates for the military community. Among active duty families, 16% reported experiencing food insecurity in the previous 12 months.

How can those in office expect service members to carry out sensitive, complex missions while they and their families worry about where the next meal will come from and when?

As the possibility of a shutdown creeps closer, Congress must fully fund critical nutrition programs that military families rely on, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC.

Postponed paychecks are not the only pain point that service members and their families will feel if Congress does not meet the funding deadline in less than two weeks.

The availability of vital programs such as childcare, commissary access, medical care, and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation activities will depend on individual funding streams and vary from base to base.

Most disruptive, military moves, known as permanent change of station, or PCS, and temporary travel, or TDY, for training, education, or duty, could be delayed or canceled as they were during the 2018-2019 shutdown.

Federal, military credit unions offer shutdown financial assistance

Sen. Tuberville’s months-long blockade is holding up more than 400 promotions of senior officers, meaning those service members and their families have already been in limbo for an excessive amount of time.

While some progress has been made in recent days to confirm senior leaders, hundreds of other officers and their families still have no guarantee when the senator’s stalemate will end, resulting in confusion and further delays for these service members and their families.

As any service member or military family can attest, delaying or canceling a PCS causes a detrimental domino effect, interfering with a spouse’s ability to leave an old job or find or begin a new job, and a child’s ability to enroll in or begin school. This also leads to a backlog of military families unable to vacate or sell an old property and move into or buy a home at their new duty station.

To rectify these and other challenges, the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, have repeatedly implored Tuberville to end the blockade and fill important leadership positions across all services.

A government shutdown would only exacerbate issues associated with the Tuberville blockade, especially at a time when service members and their families need clear guidance from leadership the most, like during a shutdown.

Perhaps most disheartening for service members and military families like mine as we approach the probability of a government shutdown is our anticipation of the performative displays of solidarity and hero worship that members of Congress will undoubtedly plaster across social media for Veterans Day.

Many members of Congress will celebrate the sanctity of our sacrifices while simultaneously continuing to put us and our families in jeopardy. Congress must safeguard military pay in the event of a shutdown, including for members of the Coast Guard, by passing an updated version of the Pay Our Troops Act.

Service members and military families are resilient. We experience hardship, the specifics fewer than 1% of the public will ever truly comprehend — if only more members of Congress honored us with deeds, not words.

Melissa A. Sullivan is a military spouse living in Washington, DC, and a former spokesperson for a federal agency.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

Gadson, drawing upon his military leadership skills, went on to become a motivational speaker, actor, and business entrepreneur. He credits his accomplishments first, to God, and to his family, but also to the team and confidence-building guidance he first received at the U.S. Military Academy and throughout his Army career.

His amazing story is told in a new book, Finding Waypoints: A Warrior’s Journey Towards Peace and Purpose, co-authored by Terese Schlachter and Gadson (Schaffner Press). Schlachter is an Emmy Award-winning television producer who met Gadson during his recovery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

LTC Greg Gadson was still recovering, but at home one Monday morning when his cell phone rang. Greg recognized his former West Point football teammate, Mike Sullivan’s number. “Sully!” Greg shouted into the phone. In the years since graduation, Sullivan had completed his military commitment and gone on to become a coach for the New York Giants. Sully had visited him at Walter Reed Army Medical Center not long after Greg was wounded in an IED explosion. “Hey Greg—how are you doing?” Sully sounded tentative. “Good! I’ve been watching—you really had some bad breaks in the last two games.” The Dallas Cowboys and the Green Bay Packers had left the Giants 0-2.

“Yeah, we’re struggling,” Sully understated. The team was dragging, physically and emotionally.

“So,” Sully hesitated, “I wanted to ask you a favor.”

“Sure, Sully, what is it . . .” . . . that I could do for you in my condition? Greg finished the sentence in his head.

“I want you to talk to the team.” “To the Giants? About what?” he asked. He looked down at his stubs. It had only been four months…

“I just want you to tell them your story,” Sully said.

Greg went silent for a minute. He had not counted on being anyone’s spiritual role model, especially for a whole team of people, especially one that played in the NFL. He was barely holding himself together, some days.

“I’ll do it, Sully, yeah, of course.” The confidence in his own voice surprised him.

He was a college player. Former college player. Former college player with no legs. What was he going to say to a room full of professionals?

Typically, it was Coach Tom Coughlin who addressed the team the night before game day. But on the evening before the Giants were to take on the Washington Redskins, Sully took the podium.

“I’ve brought a friend of mine along tonight,” Sully began, “and I’d like him to say a few words to you guys. His name is Greg Gadson. Lieutenant Colonel Greg Gadson. He played for West Point, and has had an impressive career in the Army. Last spring, he was injured by an explosive device in Iraq. He lost both of his legs. I think now is a good time for you all to hear his story.”

Greg wheeled himself to the front of the room. He glanced at the index card he’d brought along to make notes. It was blank.

“Like Sully just said, I was an outside linebacker for Army. When you play for Army— it’s different from playing for other colleges. You wouldn’t spend much time worrying about going pro—because you’re going in the Army.”

He heard a few chuckles.

“My unit and I deployed from Fort Riley to Baghdad last February. When you have a command—meaning I was in charge of a couple of hundred soldiers over there—you have a security team, and I was with them, on our way back from a memorial service for two guys who’d paid the ultimate price . . . " He stopped, as he always did when remembering the fallen. “And that’s when our vehicle struck an IED. So, one minute, I’m driving along a paved road in Iraq, thinking about my job, my mission, what I’m going to have for dinner and the next minute, I’m at Walter Reed and—and nearly half my body is gone.”

“That’s how fast your life can change,” Greg plowed forward, feeling his words press the air. “In an instant, everything as you now know it could be over. You could have a career-ending injury and lose your job. Then what happens to your family? It’s over in a second.” No one spoke. They did not even look at each other. Every Giant stared straight ahead at Gadson.

“That’s why you need to use every opportunity you have.” He glanced at Sully. “That’s how you need to play tomorrow. It’s easy to get caught up in other things—the media, the attention. But none of that matters. The only thing that matters is what’s in this room: your teammates. You can do nothing without the guy next to you. Nothing. On May 7, I would have died without the guy next to me. By the time they found me—I’d been thrown a ways from the vehicle—I was barely breathing and I’d lost a lot of blood. First Sergeant Fredrick Johnson started breathing his own breath into me. You know, Johnson is this big fast-talking southern guy—you can barely understand him when he speaks but he is a great man. He saved my life. Because he knew what to do in the heat of battle. He knew that in that moment nothing mattered but his teammate. Johnson and another guy, Eric Brown. Brown was just a kid. Private First Class Brown was our unit’s medic. I’m alive because of their training and their teamwork.

They had to secure the perimeter, to make sure nothing else happened. They had to control that chaos. And they had to save my life. And that’s what they did. They confronted all that adversity with teamwork. They came together. And they were successful.” Greg paused and looked around the room.

“That group of soldiers, out there in the desert, started out having no idea what they were capable of,” Greg continued. “They didn’t know if they could survive the heat, or an enemy attack, or some crazy disease. They didn’t know how to fight in an urban desert. But they learned. They became each other’s lifelines. In the end they saved my life, and formed that important chain, forged those bonds that got them through that night. And they all made it back to base, back to safety. That was their victory.”

Greg stopped talking. The room went silent. Then there was a clap. Then another. Every player rose from his seat, smashing huge hands together, the sound echoing through the room like firecrackers.

In the dining room Coughlin looked around for Gadson. He had presented a tremendously important message about lack of self, and immersion in team. And just when he thought he could not be any more impressed, he caught an image that set him back for a moment. There was Gadson chatting it up with his hardest nut to crack. Coughlin would not call Plaxico Burress impossible, but he was hard to handle. And the coach had sure handled some tough ones. Burress was an all “I” guy. Not the sort who would warm naturally to an “outsider.” The coach may have wondered if the lieutenant colonel would next offer up two fish to feed thousands.

Some were calling it the Miracle at the Meadowlands. Beginning with the Redskins game, the New York Giants had nearly whiplashed themselves with a turnaround season. Sully knew it was, at least in part, the words of Greg Gadson that had flipped their odds. The week after the Redskins game the Giants easily handled the Philadelphia Eagles 16-3. Then followed nearly weekly victories. The New York Jets, Atlanta Falcons, San Francisco 49ers, Miami Dolphins, Detroit Lions, Chicago Bears and the Buffalo Bills all fell to the team that had nearly gone bust in September. Then the Giants, unbelievably, headed to the playoffs, where they would beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers on their home turf. In Dallas, the Giants walked away with a 21-17 victory against the Cowboys. And in one of the coldest games on record in the NFL, they defeated Green Bay Packers in Wisconsin, confirming their invitation to the Super Bowl.

On February 2, 2008, the night before the championship game, Greg wheeled himself, once again, to the front of a hotel conference room without having put a whole lot of thought into exactly what he wanted to say. But he did have a clear message in mind. This team, now on the very brink, needed only to understand its own power and to believe in it. Belief, Greg thought, eliminates all other possibilities.

It had been eight months since he’d been blown up, that much he was sure of. He had been told he’d nearly died. He’d nearly died more than once. But in all the struggle, it never occurred to him that he really could have died. He believed Private Brown, who first applied the tourniquets in the field, and First Sergeant Fredrick Johnson, who initially resuscitated him, would not let it happen. Nor would Dr. Brad Woods, the surgeon in Baghdad. Even as he was rushed back into surgery by Dr. Donald Gajewski at Walter Reed, putrid fluid oozing from his collapsing artery, he somehow knew death was never on the table. It was not that he knew he would live. He believed he would live.

Tomorrow, there could be nothing on the table for this team but belief. Greg put on his soldier face—the look of a commander. This was his unit. They were going into battle.

It was a very different atmosphere on this Super Bowl eve from the one he had wheeled into in September. The men were different. They had grown together, they had learned to watch each other’s backs. They were stronger and more focused. There was a mighty cocoon that encapsulated them now. They were no longer individuals. He hoped he had imparted some of that spirit. He knew he had become part of it.

Greg had also evolved. He had worked hard physically, just as they had. And he had seen some dark days over the past several months, just as they had. Like soldiers in trenches, they had fought their greatest enemies together. Something close to relief swept the room when he began to speak this time. They saw a man who had for sure been straight up on the edge of death but had grabbed onto life and stuffed it back into his soul. His spirit was not only intact, it was flourishing. Gadson was learning how to turn hardship not only into a lesson, but into success.

“If I could be anywhere right now,” Greg began, “I’d be in Iraq with my unit, because that’s where I belong. I know that’s not going to happen. But I’m proud and immensely thankful to be here with you all tonight. I’ve come to know you as a group and I can honestly say you have what it takes now to be champions.”

Greg continued, “I’m going to talk to you about three words I learned in the Army: pride, poise and team. You have pride. You are proud members of the New York Giants, an organization with a lot of history and you are one game away. You’re poised to create an even deeper history of victory tomorrow. You know how you gain poise? You gain poise with practice and training. Poise means you are ready to make that difficult play, catch that impossible pass because you have gone through that motion so many times, you instinctively know what to do. It’s automatic. It’s rote. In the Army, we couldn’t step onto the battlefield knowing what lies ahead without the unwavering confidence that comes with hard core training and repetition, hammering through those drills every day—that’s poise. And team. You already know about team. I told you in September, there will only be one 2007 New York Giants team and gentlemen, this is it. This is the team that will sustain you for the rest of your lives. This is a team that I’d take back to Iraq with me—every one of you if I could—that’s how strongly I believe in you and your commitment, your bond, to each other. I trust you because you trust each other.”

A few players looked at each other, cementing that bond in their glances, nodding in slow motion at his words.

“Now there’s one more word I’m adding, and that’s belief. Most importantly, you have to believe. Believing is better than knowing. It’s that powerful. When I was lying down in the desert, weak, bleeding, unable to call out, wondering when my soldiers would come, even then I believed I would live. Dying wasn’t an option. And here I am talking to you right now. Because I believed.”

From “Finding Waypoints: A Warrior’s Journey Towards Peace and Purpose” by Terese Schlachter and Col. Gregory D. Gadson, (Ret.). Copyright ©2023 and reprinted by permission of Schaffner Press, Inc.

Terese Schlachter is a Washington-D.C. based writer and producer of videos and documentaries (NBC News, Dept of Defense) who first met Col. Gadson when covering the new veterans facility at the former Walter Reed Army Medical Center in 2007.

Col. Gregory D. Gadson retired from the Army and is an independent government contractor. He serves on several boards (among them the Gary Sinise Foundation, Hope for Warriors, and World Team Sports), and travels the country giving inspirational talks to corporate groups, non-profits, people with disabilities, teams, and other organizations.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

Our armed forces are the standard bearer for American values and principles around the world, and those who serve reflect the nation’s rich diversity of thought, background, and experiences. This diversity makes our military the world’s strongest and most lethal fighting force.

However, some politicians have not only begun to disparage our service members and undermine our top military leaders, but they’ve also set their crosshairs on some of the same service members we fought beside and to whom we all owe a tremendous debt.

When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling last year in Dobbs v. Jackson, overturning Roe v. Wade, thousands of women in service were stripped of access to abortion care. In the year since, 14 states have made abortion illegal, according to the Center for Reproductive rights.

Let’s talk about how these restrictive laws threaten our national security.

When people decide to serve, they take the same oath we took — the same oath millions of others have taken over our nation’s history. You raise your right hand, go to boot camp, get trained on your job, and go where the nation needs you. You don’t have a choice about where you go to serve — that’s part of the deal.

More than 230,000 women and 14,000 LGBTQ+ people serve in our armed forces today, meaning thousands of active duty service members stationed in states with restrictive laws are feeling the brunt of extreme politicians’ efforts to limit their freedoms. The last thing we want to see is accomplished service members separating from service early after being assigned to a duty station where they and their dependents cannot access the healthcare they need.

In the aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, then-Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Gil Cisneros testified to Congress that, “some servicemembers may choose to leave the military altogether because they may be stationed in states with restrictive reproductive health laws.”

Retention isn’t the only place our armed forces will suffer because of these extreme laws restricting service members’ freedoms — recruitment will suffer too. Roughly three-quarters of young people believe abortion should be legal. How can we expect recruitment numbers to increase if prospective service members fear being stationed in an area where they’ll be treated like second-class citizens?

Personnel is the most important aspect of readiness. As recruitment and retention continue to fall, so does the military’s ability to meet the force requirements necessary to respond to any threat. Service members should be able to focus solely on their mission, not be forced to worry about whether they or their loved ones at home can access the health care they need.

Thankfully, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, and the Department of Defense acted in the best interest of our national security by protecting access to health care — including reproductive care — for service members and their families, regardless of where they’re stationed. This decision wasn’t driven by politics or the loudest voice but by a conscious and strategic effort to ensure our military maintains its standing as the world’s strongest and most lethal fighting force.

Now, Sen. Tommy Tuberville has responded by blocking DoD nominations for his own political gain. Not to mention, a small faction in the House of Representatives pushed through a defense authorization bill that would reverse the policy, putting military pay raises on the line and using our service members as pawns to advance their own agenda.

So let’s be clear, Sen. Tuberville is actively holding our military hostage and undermining service members who have sacrificed their lives to protect him and his constituents.

He must stand down.

We learned during our service that our values and national security go hand-in-hand. Our military leaders should always do what’s best for our men and women who serve. We have no doubt that they will continue insulating service members from restrictive state laws just like they do with service members stationed overseas in countries with laws inconsistent with our values.

Soldiers, airmen, guardians, sailors, and Marines put on the uniform because this country is worth fighting for. Safeguarding our freedoms, keeping our loved ones safe, and providing a future for our children and grandchildren transcends politics and the vitriol that dominates our nation’s discourse.

That’s why we chose to serve. That’s why countless women in service chose to serve. We can’t afford to lose them. Our national security depends on it.

But more than that, the health, well-being, and freedoms of our service members and their families depend on it.

Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., is an Army veteran and a member of the House Foreign Affairs and House Intelligence Committees. Allison Jaslow is the CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

The road to my own brush with suicide was filled with such familiar scenery, including guilt over dead and wounded comrades, shame over my own complicity in killing, and my growing unease with the purpose of America’s foreign operations.

I was a 29-year-old captain in the United States Army the first time I ever put a loaded gun in my mouth. To people who knew me, I had everything. I was married to a beautiful, devoted woman, a father of two bright and thriving young children, and a proven combat leader who’d already earned a reputation for taking on tough assignments and getting the job done against long odds.

It was 2011 when I closed my eyes and prepared to squeeze the trigger of a 9 mm Army service pistol. I was in command of 85 soldiers at the end of a long deployment to eastern Afghanistan. We had just a few weeks left before we were headed home, all of us alive despite the near daily improvised explosive device attacks we’d faced during a year of intense combat. I was mere days away from real food, cold beer, and the loving embrace of my wife and children. So, why was I seconds away from killing myself?

I’ve spent the past 12 years haunting myself over the answer. Perhaps a better question to ask is, “Why am I still here?”

My road out of hell looks like something more than just one highlighted by interventions like therapy and prescription drugs. My path to healing began one night when I showed up for a poetry-writing workshop at the Torpedo Factory in Alexandria, Virginia.

The community of veterans I met that night gathered under the charisma of a second-generation Bangladeshi American poet, a woman who was raised in a conservative Muslim home. She guided us with gentle words about how writing can help us know what we contain. Once we know that, she said, we can show ourselves to others and begin to heal.

It is not lost on me that the woman whose work began to save my life that night is the mother of two sons who look like the young men I called my enemies in foreign lands over a decade ago. Being witnessed by someone whose identity is so different from my own is another kind of healing, a spiritual balm for wounds of moral injury, guilt, and complicit violence.

While we don’t have a perfect solution to stem the high suicide rates experienced by post-9/11 veterans, researchers and passionate advocates are getting closer each year. I’ve discovered, meanwhile, that there is a certain logic underpinning creative self-expression and community as tools for suicide prevention and healing from the hidden wounds of war.

According to a seven-year longitudinal analysis of veteran suicide using data from the 2011-2018 National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study, loneliness was the single strongest risk factor associated with veteran suicide attempts. Additionally, the Department of Veterans Affairs listed loneliness and social isolation as “among the strongest predictors of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and other suicidal behavior.”

Is it possible that self-expression through the arts can bring about the kind of human connection that counteracts loneliness? Can poetry prevent suicide?

One group of poets, writers, artists, and performers believes so, and with funding from the VA, they are on a path to prove it.

In the More Than One Story program — partially funded by the VA’s Staff Sgt. Parker Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program — a virtual community center allows women and non-binary veterans to connect through poetry, writing and artmaking.

Early results are promising. Over half of surveyed participants report improvements in overall wellbeing on the Warwick Scale, a common clinical questionnaire, after just two sessions. Over half of surveyed participants also report improvements in loneliness.

While these are initial results and much remains to be seen about overall outcomes, the use of writing and artmaking in community as an intervention for suicide prevention holds great promise for further study.

My first encounter with suicide was not my last. I still struggle with suicidal ideations. But, in addition to medication and therapy, I now have the tools to venture within and address shame, guilt, and moral injury. More importantly, I have community.

I am hopeful that with more tools at our disposal, the more we will build community — and as a result, the fewer of us we will lose to suicide in the years ahead.

Ben Weakley spent 14 years as an Army officer before medically retiring in 2019. A disabled veteran, he is a poet, author, and advocate who serves as the director of development for Community Building Art Works, a non-profit dedicated to building bridges between veterans and citizens through expressive arts.

Veterans in need of emergency counseling can reach the Veterans Crisis line at any time by dialing 988 and selecting option 1 after connecting to reach a VA staffer. In addition, veterans, troops or their family members can also text 838255 or visit VeteransCrisisLine.net for assistance.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.

The current unrest in Niger has provided an opportunity for analysts to revisit the ambush of the Operational Detachment Alpha, or ODA, 3212. Original statements from top military leaders placed the blame for the failed mission on the soldiers. A later investigation determined that blame could not be limited to 3212, and subsequent reporting on the ambush suggested that primary blame was not with the soldiers. In the years since, the Army posthumously awarded my son and his teammates valor medals for their actions — and also recognized the Nigerien soldiers who fought in the ambush.

Reliving the story of this ambush year after year is difficult. Once again, grief from the deaths of Bryan and his teammates escapes the imperfect emotional walls I have built to contain it. This rekindled sorrow, six years after my son’s death, has led me to reflect on the terrible cost of war.

I remember my son’s brightest days. When I was serving in Iraq in September 2004, I received an e-mail from Bryan:

“Hi Dad! …I’m dating a great Christian girl. Her name is Michelle and I’m pretty sure I’m going to marry her. I think I will pop the question in January.”

They married in July 2005. It was a joyous day filled with hope for a bright future, and it was a day of miracles as before our eyes, it seemed as if God reversed the course of an approaching storm that threatened the outdoor ceremony.

Bryan gifted me a book on Father’s Day 2010. Inside the book is a note: “Hi Dad! I hope you enjoy this book. Happy Birthday and Fathers Day. I’m lucky to have a great dad like you and my kids are lucky to have you as a grandpa! Love, Bryan.” The book went on a shelf, but the note carved a place in my heart.

Six Father’s Days have come and gone since the loss of Bryan and his teammates. Six years of sons without their fathers, of fathers without their sons — a cost of war that is never paid off, a debt that will continuously be borne by generations.

I remember standing next to Bryan’s wife, Michelle, on Oct. 5, 2017, as she told her two young sons, Ezekiel and Isaac, 11 and 9, that their dad would not be coming home. A few moments later I was alone with my grandson Isaac. With tears streaming down my face, I said “If there was anything I could do to bring your dad home, I would do it. But I can’t…” And Isaac through his own unimaginable grief reaches out a young hand to comfort me, to pat me on the back again and again as I weep.

In January 2018, I was washing dishes in Michelle’s kitchen. “Hey grandpa,” I heard from the dining room. I turned and saw my grandson Ezekiel. “Hey Zeke,” I replied. Zeke looked at me and said, “Grandpa, I’m sorry you lost your son.” Time slowed as I looked at him, surprised and amazed at his words.

“Thanks Zeke. I’m sorry you lost your dad,” I said. Zeke bowed his head slightly, sadness etched in his young features. “Yea” Zeke replied, then he turned around and slowly went upstairs. I watched him go. Pain held me in place for a long moment.

“Your dad was a quiet person,

Always thinking of the other fellow first …

What love he would have showered on you

If he had lived to see you grow up.”

This quote is from a “Letter to a Child.” It is inscribed on a wall in Seattle’s “Garden of Remembrance” memorial, dedicated to the memory of over 8,000 Washington state residents who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Bryan’s name is inscribed on that wall, and the quote reflects both his character and the profound loss his sons now bear.

I keep Bryan’s 2010 Father’s Day note on a bookshelf in my study, visible as I sit at my desk.

Images of both the fallen and bereaved, whose lives and stories have been woven into the fabric of my life, live in my mind’s eye, always on the periphery, but sometimes dominating my field of view. I have been weighing the heavy price paid by the fallen. Were their sacrifices truly in defense of the Constitution they swore to defend, or for some other less noble cause?

The horrific costs of war are not confined to the United States, to its service members, fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, children, siblings and loved ones. No, the human cost of the post-9/11 era is so enormous that it is largely ignored, removed from our community’s conscience. The Iraq wars: over 300,000 dead. Afghanistan: 176,000 dead. And over 440,000 arguably associated deaths in Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere. Taken together, over 900,000 dead. Thousands upon thousands of shattered lives mirroring my own, my family’s; mirroring the shattered families of Jeremiah, Dustin and LaDavid; mirroring the shattered families of the five Nigerien troops who also fell.

To those in leadership who make decisions to support foreign conflicts, to send U.S. military forces into harm’s way; who could, in the not-too-distant future, commit U.S. forces to hostilities that will invariably result in American deaths, I say this: If a conflict is not worth the death of your own son or daughter, if you are not willing to send your own son or daughter to death’s door to return home in a flag-draped coffin, don’t send ours.

Hank Black retired from the Marine Corps in 1999 and recently retired from the FBI. He resides in Washington state.

Have an opinion?

This article is an Op-Ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, or submit an editorial of your own, please email opinions@militarytimes.com for Military Times or our services sites. Please email opinion@defensenews.com to reach Defense News, C4ISRNet or Federal Times. Want more perspectives like this sent straight to you? Subscribe to get our Commentary & Opinion newsletter once a week.