When the Obama administration announced its new military strategy last month, and the correlating proposed spending reductions, conservatives tried to claim, in the words of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), that the President was trying to “gut the military.” But as CAP’s Larry Korb, Alex Rothman and Max Hoffman write in a new report today, President Obama’s defense budget “does little to bring the baseline budget back down from its current level, which remains near historic highs.” Indeed, the New York Times noted last month that “over the next four years, the Pentagon budget would rise each year, reaching $567 billion by 2017.”

But you might not know that by scanning the Wall Street Journal’s new budget analysis. According to one graphic, the Journal suggests that military spending will decline over the next few years:

While it may be true that military spending will decline as a percentage of GDP, framing the military budget in these terms hides the fact that defense spending will increase in the coming years. Why? As the aforementioned CAP report explains, “Because these ‘cuts’ come from projected increases in defense spending.” As such, “the baseline defense budget will fall by just 1 percent, or $5 billion, next year and resume its growth thereafter.” Here is what a chart of projected military spending actually looks like:

Korb, Rothman and Hoffman offer a number of “next steps” the Pentagon can take to trim more fat, including reducing F-35 procurement, cancelling the V-22 Osprey, shrinking the size of the nuclear arsenal and reducing the size of the carrier fleet from nine to eleven.

Despite efforts from congressional hawks like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ), Senate Democrats are resisting efforts to limit President Obama’s policy options on Iran.

The hawkish Senators’ lack of success is noticeable as the three men are seen as as some of the most influential Senators on foreign policy and national security. But their efforts to roll out a piece of bipartisan legislation pressuring the White House’s hand on diplomacy with Iran has found few allies across the aisle. Sens. Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA) reportedly signed onto the legislation and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is rumored to be on board. But Senate Democrats are concerned that the resolution “would be seen as creeping toward an authorization of military force against Iran,” reports The Hill’s Alexander Bolton.

A Senate aid denied that characterization of the legislation and emphasized that it is not an authorization of military action and leaves the option of further negotiations.

However a statement last month from Graham and Lieberman stated, in no uncertain terms, that they would support a bipartisan resolution explicitly opposing containment. The statement read:

When it comes to addressing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, all options must be on the table — except for one, and that is containment. [...] Containment is failure, and failure cannot be an option.

Neither U.S. intelligence officials nor the IAEA have concluded that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Indeed the IAEA has stated concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program but senior U.S. intelligence officials have expressed support for ongoing sanctions and diplomacy.

Efforts to press Obama to employ the “military option” continue to be discussed in Washington but the partisan divide between those urging action — be it in Congress or outside pressure groups — and those pursuing diplomacy and sanctions is becoming increasingly distinct as Republicans seek to portray the President as weak on national defense and foreign policy.

Responding to news that the Pentagon will formally relax rules forbidding women from serving in combat, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta said on the cable network last Sunday that the real issue is about women serving in the military more broadly. Referring to a recent report that violent sex crimes within the military have increased over the last 6 years, Trotta said women service members should “expect” sexual assault and complained about levels of bureaucracy that support women who have been “raped too much.”

Now, Trotta is facing some backlash. Kayla Williams, a former sergeant and Arabic linguist in the 101st Airborne Division who also served in Iraq, told ThinkProgress that the “level of ignorance” in Trotta’s comments is “astounding”:

Trotta’s implication that women “in close contact” with men should “expect” to be sexually assaulted is breathtakingly offensive, as is her baffling reference to women “who are now being raped too much.” Frankly, I don’t even know how to respond to someone who holds such a low opinion of those who risk their lives in defense of our country every day.

And Anu Bhagwati, Executive Director of the Service Women’s Action Network and herself a former Marine captain, also issued this statement, noting that Trotta’s disturbing comments are based on a series of myths about men and women serving together in the military:

It has become a desperate but popular myth among commentators recently that women’s presence in the military necessarily means they will get raped. First, the mere presence of women in the workplace does not turn men into rapists. Second, the majority of victims of military rape over time have been men. In fact, half of the Military Sexual Trauma patients being treated at Veterans Affairs hospitals today are men.

Bhagwati adds that the issue isn’t men and women serving together, it’s the “broken” U.S. military justice system which currently offers “few deterrents to rapists or the commanders who protect them. Serial predators can largely expect to enjoy full military careers without ever being punished for the violent crimes they commit.”

Media Matters reports that Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) called Trotta’s comments “shameful” and “abhorrent.” “Contrary to Trotta’s comments, being a victim of rape or sexual assault is not in the job description of a US Service Member,” Speier said.

Our guest blogger is Krittika Lalwaney, who recently visited Syrian refugee camps in Turkey

Syrian refugees in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan are a forgotten piece of the ongoing Syrian revolution. The refugees are not only fleeing the bloodshed, they are active revolutionaries aiding regime opponents and bridging the communication gap between pro-democracy activists inside Syria and the international community. The roughly 10,000 Syrians living in tents inside Turkey have spent the past 10 months urging friends and family inside to continue to demonstrate and plan escape routes for defectors. I visited two refugee camps in Antakya, Turkey in January where I spoke to Syrian refugees and members of the Free Syria Army to understand their roles in strengthening the Syrian opposition.

Inside the refugee camps, only 500 meters from the Syrian border, families were glued to television news reports from Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera. Laptops with wireless internet connections were on Skype where refugees connect with friends and families inside Syria. Refugees will often inquire about access to staples because in many cities such as Homs, the regime has cut off water, electricity and food supplies. Syrians in these camps organize and infiltrate the border to deliver food packages, medical supplies and water. The porous borders serve as a vital communication channel for the refugee community and play an imperative role in keeping the opposition alive.

One Syrian refugee I interviewed said he keeps track of the number of dissidents killed, detained or missing through underground networks and then relays that information to international media outlets. Refugees are central to coordinating protests in Syria; and Army defectors in these camps provide military intelligence to soldiers in the Free Syria Army.

The refugees are also faced with everyday challenges living in Turkey. The Hatay province in Antakya, Turkey at one time used to be a part of Syria and consists of a large Alawite community. Turkish Alawites have enjoyed a strong relationship with the Assad regime and many have benefited from sending their children to Syrian universities. Thus, the recent influx of Syrian dissidents has caused problems with the host community. Refugees have to be wary as many Turkish Alawites are suspected of spying for the regime. One refugee told me that a group of men severely beat him after he spoke openly against Assad and in favor of the revolution.

There are also concerns about the living conditions in the camps. Turkey has not developed a long-term strategy for hosting them. Consequently, their children have no access to public schools and there is no potential for legitimate employment. And harsh weather has wreaked havoc. Syrians living inside Turkey are in desperate need of winter clothes, blankets, new tents, and shoes to cope with winter weather. As the violence in Syria persists, more refugees have been crossing over to Turkey in need of basic essentials. Furthermore, access to health care is limited in the refugee camps where there is only one health tent for 3,000 people. The health unit is not equipped to treat severe wounds or infections.

The refugees continue to aid the opposition but it’s unclear, given worsening living conditions and security fears, how long their efforts will remain effective.