OPINION OF THE COURT
KRAUSS, Judge:
Pursuant to his pleas, a military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted appellant of attempted indecent language and attempted indecent act in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 880 (2006 & Supp. III 2009) [hereinafter UCMJ], and attempted persuasion, inducement, or enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity that would be criminal under Article 120, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 920, by means of the internet, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (2006) as a violation of Article 134, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 934. The military judge sentenced appellant to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for eighteen months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of E-l. In accordance with the terms of a pretrial agreement, the convening authority approved confinement for thirteen months, but otherwise approved the adjudged sentence.
Appellant’s case is now before this court for review under Article 66, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866. Appellant initially asserted only that the charge and specification alleging attempted indecent language failed to state an offense for failure to allege a terminal element associated with the offense attempted under Article 134, UCMJ. We specified three issues, in essence: whether Article 80, UCMJ, preempts prosecution of the offense alleged under Article 134, UCMJ; whether appellant raised matter inconsistent with his plea to the same offense, when, in his unsworn statement, he stated that he never intended to do anything with the girl; and whether confinement for life was the correct maximum punishment. Appellant then filed a supplemental assignment of error essentially asserting that the military judge failed to sufficiently discuss with appellant the substantial step necessary to support his guilty plea to the clause three, Article 134, UCMJ, offense at issue.
We have examined the record of trial and considered the briefs and arguments of the parties. Our decision turns on the intent required to support an 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) [576]*576conviction for attempting to persuade, induce, or entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity.
BACKGROUND
Sergeant (SGT) Schell had a history of exploiting the internet to identify and locate individuals willing to engage in sexual activity with him. On a number of occasions he was successful, and each of these internet-facilitated sexual encounters involved adults. On the occasion giving rise to the ease at hand, SGT Schell believed he was in contact ■with a fourteen year-old girl going by the name of Taylor. However, it was not a fourteen year-old girl chatting with appellant over the internet, but rather, an adult man and law enforcement agent, posing as a young girl, intent upon catching sexual predators who troll the internet searching for prospective child victims. This led to the charged attempts.
The charged attempt we address here stems from 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which states:
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.
The military judge defined the elements of this offense as follows:
That on or between 17 March 2010 and 18 March 2010, at or near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, that you knowingly attempted to persuade, induce, or entice an individual known to you by the screen name of Joco_cheer_girl and with the given name of [TA], to engage in sexual activity, which if undertaken would constitute a criminal offense under Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; that you did so by means of or a facility of interstate commerce, in this case the internet; and that — I’m sorry, going back to Article 120, that that would be a violation of 18 USC, Section 2422, subparagraph Bravo, and additionally, that under the circumstances your conduct was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Service discrediting conduct is conduct which tends to harm the reputation of the service or lower it in the public esteem.
... [a]nd ... that you believe that the person you were communicating with was less than 18 years of age.
The judge did not address the elements inherent in such an attempt, those of intent to commit the predicate offense and a substantial step toward commission of that offense.
Appellant’s admissions and the stipulation of fact in this case reveal a lurid and graphic internet chat exchange involving sexually explicit language and photos featuring appellant’s erect penis. Appellant asked Taylor whether she would allow his girlfriend to perform various sexual acts on her. He stipulated that in order to entice Taylor into performing sexual activity with him and his girlfriend, he described his girlfriend’s physical attributes and sexual inclinations. He further stipulated that “[i]n addition to attempting to entice ‘Taylor’ into committing sexual acts with him, [he] also throws out the idea to see if any of ‘Taylor’s’ friends might want to join them in sexual activity.”
Appellant sent Taylor two photographs of his naked erect penis over the internet and hoped she would send him photos of her naked breasts or vagina. He explicitly discussed the act of sexual intercourse and what he wanted to do with her sexually. He further stipulated that “[a]t the time [he] enticed ‘Taylor’ into sexual activity with him, he believed she actually was a fourteen year-old girl,” and that “[he] attempted to entice ‘Taylor’ into having sexual intercourse with him, which if he engaged in sexual intercourse with a child under the age of sixteen years, would constitute aggravated sexual assault of a child, a violation of Article 120, U.C.M.J.”
Appellant stipulated that “[a]fter assurances by ‘Taylor’ that [he] would not get into trouble, [he] set up a time and place to meet [577]*577up for the purposes of engaging in sexual activity with ‘Taylor.’ ” Appellant later can-celled the planned meeting concluding “not tonight maybe another day.”
Addressing the defense of entrapment, appellant stipulated that “[he] was predisposed to attempt to entice a fourteen year-old girl to engage in sexual activity with him based on his history of inviting others to engage in sexually deviant behavior with him including multiple partnered sexual activity,” and that “[he] was in the Yahoo! Chat room for purposes of finding persons willing to engage in multiple-person sexual-partnered activity when he discovered ‘Taylor[J who he quickly learned was fourteen years old.”
During the providence inquiry, appellant stated, in pertinent part, the following: “My intent was to meet a 14 year old girl, ma’am.” “I did take the steps to attempt to persuade, come up with ideas using language that would — that would persuade them and not the other way around, ma’am, and then make her want to have sex with me, ma’am.” When asked by the judge “what [he was] trying to induce or persuade Taylor to do,” appellant answered: “Commit sexual acts with me or with other individuals, ma’am.” The judge continued, “What sort of sexual activity were you trying to persuade her to do?” Appellant responded “To have sexual intercourse with me, ma’am.” The judge finally asked “So you were trying to persuade her, a 14 year old girl, to have sexual intercourse with you?” Appellant replied “Correct, ma’am.”
Upon completion of the providence inquiry, the military judge asked for the trial counsel’s calculation of the maximum punishment authorized in the case. The defense agreed that the maximum included confinement for life and the judge so advised the appellant.
Later, in his unsworn statement, appellant said:
I never intended to do anything with that girl I thought I was talking to online. That’s why I never left post and I did make an excuse not to meet up with her. I don’t know why I decided to talk to her like that or why I sent the pictures. When I went online that day I was not looking for a 14 year old girl. I did not know she was 14 until she told me, and then I don’t know if I decided to keep talking to her out of boredom or curiosity, ma’am. I do know that I never intended to act on our discussions, but really there is no excuse for my actions, ma’am.
In his sentencing argument, trial counsel emphasized the need to protect children from the likes of appellant and raised the specter of what would have occurred if ‘Taylor’ had actually been a fourteen year-old girl. The defense counsel, on the other hand, exploited appellant’s unsworn statement and argued that no harm ever would have come to any child because appellant never actually intended to carry through with plans to meet ‘Taylor.’ The defense counsel also highlighted that appellant neither travelled to meet ‘Taylor’ nor attempted to contact her again after calling off the meeting discussed.
Defense counsel’s argument prompted the following dialogue:
MJ: Counsel, before I close to deliberate and when we were talking about the elements of the Specification of Charge II this came up and I think it’s probably prudent at this point to go ahead and address this, is that there’s obviously testimony and argument that Sergeant Schell did not ever leave Fort Leavenworth, but that in my discussions with counsel that they indicated and defense agreed that the offense was — and let me summarize this and you can put your own take on it; that the offense was complete when the enticement happened, the fact that he never acted on it, that what he’s charged with is attempting to persuade, induce, or entice this individual to engage in sexual activity and that it’s not necessary that he actually drove or followed through or anything like that. Would you agree with that, defense? DC: That is correct, Your Honor, and specifically there is case law that does not require a substantial step moving forward to actually commit the offense for which he was enticing for, just that he intended to entice them to commit that offense.
MJ: Okay, and, government, would you also agree?
ATC: Yes, Your Honor.
[578]*578MJ: Okay, and, Sergeant Schell, do you agree? I would assume that you’ve discussed this with your counsel that despite the fact that or even in light of the fact that you didn’t actually leave Leavenworth, would you agree that you committed the offense when you were attempting to persuade or entice her?
ACC: Yes, ma’am.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Where an accused, testifying in an unsworn statement, “sets up matter inconsistent with” his plea of guilty, “the military judge must either resolve the apparent inconsistency or reject the plea.” United States v. Phillippe, 63 M.J. 307, 309 (C.A.A.F.2006) (citations omitted); UCMJ art. 46(a); Rule for Courb-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 910(h)(2). “A military judge who fails to do so has abused his or her discretion.” United States v. Hayes, 70 M.J. 454, 458 (C.A.A.F.2012). Having failed to properly resolve such inconsistency, a substantial basis in law and fact to disapprove any finding of guilty entered upon such plea exists and the court will reverse the conviction at issue. See UCMJ, art. 45(a); Hayes, 70 M.J. at 458; United States v. Care, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 535, 541, 40 C.M.R. 247, 253, 1969 WL 6059 (1969); United States v. Estes, 62 M.J. 544, 548 (Army Ct.Crim.App.2005).
A plea of guilty to an attempt under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) cannot properly be accepted absent admission by the accused, inter alia, (1) that he intended to persuade, induce, or entice a minor to engage in sexual activity that would be criminal under the law, by means of the internet, and (2) that he took a substantial step toward such persuasion, inducement, or enticement. See United States v. Winckelmann, 70 M.J. 403, 407 (C.A.A.F.2011). A definition for the intent required has yet to be resolved in our jurisdiction. See id. at 407-08 (resolving a definition for the substantial step required but leaving open a definition for the requisite intent, reinforced by reference to federal circuit court decisions that define that intent differently, compare United States v. Young, 613 F.3d 735, 742-43 (8th Cir.2010), and Eighth Circuit Pattern Jury instructions: Criminal § 6.18.2422B (2012), with United States v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 202 (2d Cir. 2006)).1
We hold that the intent element of attempted persuasion, inducement, or enticement requires the accused intend to actually persuade, induce, or entice a minor to actually engage in illegal sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); United States v. Shinn, 681 F.3d 924, 930-31 (8th Cir.2012); United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000, 1013-14 (11th Cir.2012); United States v. Lundy, 676 F.3d 444, 450-52 (5th Cir.2012); Young, 613 F.3d at 742-43; United States v. Pierson, 544 F.3d 933, 938-40 (8th Cir.2008) (illustrating a case where accused does not intend to engage in physical act himself but intends the minor to engage in illegal sexual activity while affirming that persuasion of an actual minor is not required for conviction of attempt under the statute). In short, the accused must intend that the minor, ultimately, actually engage in illegal sexual activity as a result of his persuasion, inducement, or enticement. One who specifically intends to persuade another to do something, expects [579]*579and intends that something to be done; otherwise he does not actually intend to persuade anyone to do anything.2 Therefore, we also hold that appellant’s unsworn statements made during the sentencing phase of his court-martial, denying that he ever had any intent to do anything with the minor, set up matter inconsistent with his plea requiring disapproval of that finding of guilty in this case. Hayes, 70 M.J. at 458.3
The premise upon which the government prosecuted the offense and upon which it sought to secure certain punishment of the accused relied upon the notion that appellant actually intended to engage in sexual activity with a minor. The stipulation of fact and providence inquiry agree in this respect. Disagreement with that proposition came to light only during appellant’s unsworn statement and was then amplified by defense counsel’s argument on sentence. Though we might glean from the record ultimate agreement on the element of intent, the record effectively only addresses the substantial step element in that respect. Whether the judge failed to effectively resolve an inconsistency relative to intent or whether the parties and court agreed upon an intent contrary to that required, the result is the same.
Some United States Courts of Appeals hold that § 2422(b) does not require the accused to intend for the minor to actually engage in sexual activity, but only that the accused intend for the minor to achieve a certain mental state- — that the minor assent to engage in illegal sexual activity. See, e.g., United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 419 (4th Cir.2012). We decline to adopt such an interpretation as contrary to the plain language of the statute and its legislative history.
The statute makes criminal attempts to persuade a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. It does not make criminal attempts to persuade children to merely want to engage in sexual activity or to merely gain the assent of the minor for the sake of that assent. It is intended to address those who lure children out to actually engage in illegal sexual activity; it is not intended to address those who simply encourage or incite children to assent to the possibility of illegal sex. It is a luring statute; not a corrupting statute. The legislative history emphasizes the distinction.
Congress enacted the statute to address predatory behavior by adults intent upon exploiting the internet to actually persuade, induce, entice, or coerce children to actually engage in sexual activity:
With the advent of ever-growing computer technology, law enforcement officials are discovering that criminals roam the Internet just as they roam the streets.
_ Recent, highly publicized news accounts in which pedophiles have used the Internet to seduce or persuade children to meet them to engage in sexual activities have sparked vigorous debate about the wonders and perils of the information superhighway. Youths who have agreed to such meetings have been kidnapped, photographed for child pornography, raped, beaten, robbed, and worse.
During the 104th and 105th Congresses, the Subcommittee on Crime held seven hearings on issues related to crimes against children. At those hearings, the Subcommittee heard testimony from victim parents, child safety advocacy groups, and federal, state and local law enforcement about the nature, threat and best ways to stop pedophiles who prey on innocent children ....
[580]*580H.R. 3494, the “Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act of 1998,” is a response to requests of victim parents and law enforcement to address public safety issues involving the most vulnerable members of our society, our children. H.R. 3494 is the most comprehensive package of new crimes and increased penalties ever developed in response to crimes against children, particularly assaults facilitated by computers. The bill attacks pedophiles who stalk children on the Internet.
H.R.Rep. No. 105-557, at 12 (1998), 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N. 678, 681.
The attempt and ultimate failure to attach the so-called “contact amendment”4 to § 2422 further illustrates the fact that this statute is intended to counter sexual predators who use the internet to lure children into illegal sexual activity and not merely to achieve a mental state in the victim. The House of Representatives passed the amendment unanimously, but it was rejected by the Senate.
The legislative history of the amendment states that it would establish:
[A] fine and up to 5 years in prison for anyone who, using the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly contacts (or attempts to contact) an individual who has not attained the age of 18, or who has been represented to the person making the contact as not having attained the age of 18, for purposes of engaging in criminal sexual activity.
H.R.Rep. No. 105-557, at 19, 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N. 678 at 687.
The history elaborates upon the perceived necessity of this amendment:
Under current law,5 the Federal Government must prove that a pedophile “persuaded, induced, enticed or coerced” a child to engage in a sexual act. This standard allows the criminal to establish a prolonged, intimate and highly destructive relationship with the victim, involving explicit sexual language, without actually violating the law. This new crime ... establishes a lower penalty for initiating a harmful relationship with a child for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. [This amendment] also clarifies that this provision is not intended to apply to minors who engage in consensual sexual activity with other minors.
The Senate rejected this amendment. To paraphrase one Senator, this amendment would move the law too close to creating a thought crime.6
In other words, Congress understood § 2422(b) as requiring more than merely engaging in sexually explicit conversation that [581]*581engendered, encouraged, or incited the thought of assent to possible sex. Nor does it make criminal “cybersex.” Indeed, the proposed defense to the offense reveals, again, the evil to be addressed is the specter of actual sexual activity.7 As described above, some United States Courts of Appeals, on the other hand, have decided to interpret the statute in a different fashion.8
Such an interpretation is unnecessary and inappropriate. Courts applying the “minor’s assent” standard recognize that the evidence of intent will rarely, if ever, fail to establish intent to actually have children engage in illegal sex. See, e.g., United States v. Berg, 640 F.3d 239, 246-53 (7th Cir.2011); United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). Perusal of the published eases bears this out. Indeed, the evidence available to the government in this case, virtually equivalent to appellant’s admissions during the guilty plea inquiry, would be sufficient to support a conviction in a contested case for the offense despite any denial by the accused that he never intended to actually engage in any sexual activity with a minor. See, e.g., Young, 613 F.3d at 740, 742-43; United States v. Patten, 397 F.3d 1100, 1102-04 (8th Cir.2005).9
By rejecting an interpretation that focuses on the mental state of the victim, we also avoid excluding from liability those who may employ seemingly innocuous methods to lure a child out to engage in illegal sexual activity. The willingness of the minor victim to engage in sexual activity, or lack thereof, may be probative of the accused’s intent, but should not be required to establish the offense. See, e.g., United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 567-68 (9th Cir.2004). Indeed, cases may arise where a sexual predator uses the internet to persuade, induce, or entice a minor by promise of something other than sex, never mentioning sex, yet intend nothing other than criminal sexual activity as the purpose of his persuasion.
By maintaining proper focus on the accused’s mental state, we also avoid the improper exclusion of those who attempt to induce a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity through a third party without ever attempting to obtain a minor’s assent at all. See Brooks, 60 M.J. at 498-99. Excluding from liability those who intend to induce a child’s unwary entry into a life of prostitution through a third party or lure a child out in order to commit forcible rape, illustrate two [582]*582possible examples of the potentially absurd consequences associated with basing the question of intent on the mental state of the victim. See also United States v. Douglas, 626 F.3d 161 (2d Cir.2010) (applying a “minor’s assent” interpretation in a case involving attempted inducement through an intermediary where the facts revealed appellant’s indifference to the assent of the minor as much as any intent to ultimately obtain the minor’s assent through a variety of possible means).
In light of the above, we also hold that the preemption doctrine does not prevent prosecution of this offense under clause three of Article 134, UCMJ, and that the maximum punishment is life in confinement under R.C.M. 1003. There is nothing enumerated by Congress under the UCMJ that contemplates the prosecution and conviction of those who lure or attempt to lure children out to engage in illegal sex by means of the internet nor is there any offense closely related to the same.10 See United States v. Kowalski, 69 M.J. 705, 706-07 (C.G.Ct.Crim.App.2010). Though Congress never contemplated application of this maximum punishment under the UCMJ but rather only contemplated its application within the framework of the federal sentencing guidelines, we are bound to endorse it under the circumstances. R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(B)(ii) (“An offense not listed in Part IV and not included in or closely related to any offense listed therein is punishable as authorized by the United States Code....”).11
Though the provideney of appellant’s plea was not affected by the possibility of an incorrect maximum punishment, and despite the fact that his admissions during that inquiry support a conviction under the definition of intent described above, the inconsistent statements made during his unsworn statement, unresolved at the court-martial, require our reversal of the § 2422(b) conviction. Hayes, 70 M.J. at 458. Absent that charge, appellant’s maximum possible sentence to confinement is reduced to seven years. We cannot say with confidence that in a case where the maximum was seven years’ confinement, rather than confinement for life, appellant would have received at least thirteen months’ confinement in this case absent the § 2422(b) conviction. Therefore, we return the matter for a rehearing, where the convening authority can either pursue the § 2422(b) offense, or simply order a rehearing on sentence for the two remaining offenses. See United States v. Moffeit, 63 M.J. 40 (C.A.A.F.2006); United States v. Sales, 22 M.J. 305 (C.M.A.1986).
CONCLUSION
On consideration of the entire record, the finding of guilty of Charge II and its Specification is set aside. The remaining findings of guilty are affirmed. The same or a different convening authority may order a rehear[583]*583ing on Charge II and its Specification and the sentence, which is set aside. If the convening authority determines that a rehearing on Charge II and its Specification is impracticable, he may dismiss the charge and order a rehearing on the sentence only.
Senior Judge KERN, Senior Judge YOB, Judge JOHNSON, Judge ALDYKIEWICZ, Judge BURTON, and Judge MARTIN concur.