When Pentagon officials next month present Congress with their plan for the military for the next two decades, a top question from lawmakers should be why the Pentagon believes the military is adequately equipped and staffed for its many missions when two recent reports suggest otherwise. Congress must ensure the military’s future is based not on hope but fact.

The two reports warn that the Army is stretched too thin by its commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, resulting in a prolonged presence in both countries. This, in turn, has harmed recruiting and retention efforts, which further exacerbated shortages.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer whose report was paid for by the Pentagon, warned that the Army was at risk of “breaking the force in the form of a catastrophic decline” in recruitment and re-enlistment. He writes that the mission in Iraq was understaffed, U.S. forces have remained there longer and been killed and wounded in higher numbers than expected. This has caused Army personnel to re-think their commitment to the Army, said Mr. Krepinevich, who found that Army captains were leaving the force at a rate one-third higher than during the 1990s. The Army missed its recruiting goals last year even though enlistment bonuses were doubled, more college dropouts were accepted and the maximum age of recruits was raised.

His report was not made public but a copy was given to The Associated Press.

A second report by William Perry and Madeleine Albright, the secretaries of defense and state under President Clinton, reached similar conclusions, warning that unless the strain on the Army and Marine Corps were relieved soon, “it will have highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force.”

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he hadn’t read either report and called their conclusions out of date or misdirected. The Army, he said, was “battle hardened.” The question is whether they are being asked to do too much with too few resources. It is a question that has plagued the entire Iraq war from the vice president’s assertion that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators to the continued inadequacy of body and vehicle armor.

Rather than continue this battle of perceptions, members of Congress should want to find out what the situation really is. They’ll have an opportunity to do this when the Pentagon presents its Quadrennial Defense Review to Congress in early February. Begun in 1997, the QDR outlines the Defense Department’s force strength, budget, plans for modernizing, etc., for the next 10 to 20 years. It forms the basis for the president’s budget for the military and the subsequent appropriations bills in Congress. Its assumptions had better be right.

By persistently asking about troop levels and equipment needs, which Sen. Susan Collins, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has done, lawmakers can help assure they are.