The National Defense Authorization Act is part of Congress’ most basic and sacred duties, providing for a common defense as outlined under the U.S. Constitution.

This year’s NDAA is the product of consistent bipartisan cooperation. House and Senate leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, put politics aside to do what is best for our troops, their families and our military’s best interest. The legislation was advanced in both chambers with bipartisan votes of 270-156 and 70-27, respectively, in early October.

In times of mounting world-wide tensions in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the fiscal year 2016 NDAA responsibly matches President Obama’s $612 billion request for military spending. Additionally, the legislation contains major reforms that include retirement savings options for more service members, a ban on torture, $50 million in military aide for Ukraine in their fight against Russian separatists and a well-deserved military pay raise.

It includes the same language restricting the closing of Guantanamo Bay that the president himself signed into law the last number of years.

It also authorizes the Pentagon to deploy additional cyber-security squadrons to additional National Guard units — of which the Battle Creek Air National Guard here in West Michigan is a top contender.

Since it was first passed more than 50 years ago, the NDAA has only been vetoed four times. In each case, the president objected to specific provisions, and each time, the House, Senate and president were able to find a compromise that earned the president’s signature.

So why did the president use his veto pen on Thursday, marking only the fifth instance of a NDAA veto ever?

Unfortunately, the answer is pure political posturing.

For the first time, our commander in chief made a very clear political decision to hold the NDAA and, by extension, our military, hostage.

By vetoing bipartisan, bicameral legislation that provides pay and benefits for our troops, he is attempting to use his veto power as leverage in a broader budgetary battle. His tactics are misguided to be sure, as most Americans agree national security should not be a partisan issue carelessly tied to ideological battles usually saved for presidential campaigns.

It’s shameful that President Obama is playing political football with those who courageously defend our great nation and their loved ones. The House and Senate will work in the coming days to override the president’s power play.

As regional conflicts play out on a global scale and terror organizations grow in size and strength, we should be proudly standing together in support of our military. Our men and women in uniform, and their families, deserve nothing less. We promise to do our best for them.

It is time our commander in chief does the same.