How to lessen the strain of deployments

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Monday, November 16, 2009 - 5:48 PM Share

Last week I participated in a Georgetown University forum on the military in observation of Veterans' Day. One of the panelists (I wasn't taking notes, but I believe it was Iraq vet William Quinn) said that the military today is sharp, but that the blade is thinner. I think that is a good way of putting it.

Here is how I think that blade can be strengthened. My point of departure is the thought that if the military is broken again, it won't be like in the 1970s, when the ranks of the post-Vietnam military were racked by drug use, violence, racism and insubordination. Rather the cracks will be in the families of soldiers -- wives who can't take it any longer, kids who grow up seeing their fathers only intermittently.

At last night's terrific forum, I said that if you want to improve the deployability of the military, don't buy an airplane, build and staff an first-rate extended-hours day care center. Building on that thought, I wonder if we should privilege the families of deployed soldiers in new ways:

Issue them a colored card for the length of the deployment that sends them to the front of the line. Ask local civilian merchants and service providers to honor it as well. (I can see advertisements in the local newspapers: "Special discount for Blue Card Holders!" or "Kids eat free for Red Cards!")
Maybe open up the mess halls (yes, I know they are called DFACs, but that's my least favorite military acronym) once or twice a week, and let mothers bring their kids. I speak as a veteran of a family of six kids, where my poor outnumbered mother was forever striving to fill us up, especially when there were four teenagers in the house.
Give them the base gym exclusively for two hours, twice a week, with
day care services on site.
Maybe offer "meals on wheels" -- that is, delivered meals-two or three times a week for deployed families. We can do it for the elderly, why not for stressed out military moms?
At the end of the deployment, hold a ceremony at which spouses turn in those colored cards, and are publicly thanked, while their soldiers watch them.

I'd especially like to hear from military spouses. Would these help ease the strain of the next deployment? And what else would?

The U.S. Army/Flickr

EXPLORE:NORTH AMERICA, MILITARY

(45)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

WYRFRAME

6:33 PM ET

November 16, 2009

Photo choice

I'm not certain whether I should be apologetic, for mentioning that the only thing I can think of when I see the article photo (man in desert-camouflage uniform, sitting with kids in a preschool or kindergarten, and apparently handing out various camo-esque hats) is the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Pm5QPckIE

JIMMY W

6:43 PM ET

November 16, 2009

DFACs and BAS

I think giving families access to DFACs will be the most helpful of all. The modern military family is dual-income, meaning the spouse works. Having access to the DFAC will definitely help out the working spouse. It would be as simple as taking money from Basic Allowances for Subsistance to pay the DFACs.

The military bases already have a great day-care system in place for active duty and mobilized reservists.

The problem is more often with the mobilized reservists who live far away from a military base. Extending the defense day care system to all corners of America will do more to improve reserve readiness than these family readiness group initiatives.

The reserves already have a catering system in place to feed the reservists during drill. Extending it to feed the families should be easy, fiscally speaking.

MEG

6:52 PM ET

November 16, 2009

Support for military families

I think you're right about cracks in the family, and its a great idea to solicit suggestions for supporting military families. I agree with the meals-on-wheels, and granting special privileges for deployed families.

However, I think your daycare suggestion might not be the best thing at all for the children. Day care should be only for those families who really want it. Less, not more, daycare, might be a better goal.* How do you do that? Pay the deployed enough that a parent who wants to be can choose to be at home with the children.

Beyond special privileges, just making day-to-day life easier for military families could be a goal---the military itself could make an effort to be less capricious in changing schedules with all the attendant travel costs, etc., not to mention that a sense of powerlessness multiplies perceived stress. Civilian businesses and agencies could do more to help military families dealing with banks, credit cards, insurance companies, government agencies like the DMV, in the absence of the affected military person, that can take hour after frustrating hour.

Ending the practice of these long and repeated deployments would, as everyone in the military, I think, knows, reduce long term trauma to the family.

Finally, there are individuals who have found ways to really help families, like the investment banker in Boston whose foundation gives $10,000 annually for college tuition for every child who has lost a parent to war.

Best wishes

*My reading of the daycare literature is that more than 20 hours a week is not a good ida. I have worked as a day care provider, as well as a researcher in the area.

STARBUCK

7:46 PM ET

November 16, 2009

Funding the Family Readiness Groups

There was a great article in the WaPo about a year ago, written by the spouse of a battalion commander who was in Iraq at the time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/03/AR2009050301850.html

In this article, she mentions having the Army directly fund the family readiness groups. Currently, FRGs have to do fundraisers in order to make money, which is used for family-oriented events, and for newborn baby bundles. The author of the article brings up two issues--first, that these fund raisers usually consist of the spouses baking cupcakes and selling them to their respective Soldiers in the motor pool. You might as well just have Soldiers write a check to the FRG and save yourself the time. Incidentally, that's the other issue--the time spent on fundraisers both by families and Soldiers (even single Soldiers) is a bit ridiculous. Soldiers value their free time, and spouses can't always afford to participate in fundraisers--many spouses work their own jobs. Funding the FRGs directly would save time (and, let's face it, Soldiers' money)

However, I am a little confused in the aforementioned WaPo article regarding a company commander's responsibility in taking care of families. Certainly, I aimed to do so--but my focus was on keeping families informed during a deployment. I had a diverse array of families--single soldiers, single parents, dual military, kids with special needs, etc--so it's difficult to effectively take care of them all. While families may identify with their company or battalion, there are many issues which a company of battalion commander can't possibly resolve--"Big Army" needs to reach out.

HUNTER

8:35 PM ET

November 16, 2009

Great ideas

Here's one the Guard has already fulfilled. Your #5 conforms closely to the Freedom Salute program where family members/wives are recognized with medallions, pins and certificates (and other stuff) and soldiers are recognized with cased flags (1st tour), and rings/clocks (2nd tour) etc. Special contributors to the Family Readiness Groups or the unit as a whole receive a nice Minuteman statue or a large framed print (1 ea per company size unit).

http://www.virtualarmory.com/FreedomSalute/OverView.aspx

There's always at least one flag officer at these events and often times the families take pictures with the General. There are usually other associated events tied into the Freedom Salute. One of my companies had a parade and a pig roast.

These are major events (time consuming too) but they are now a mandatory part of returning units post-mobilization actvities (like Reunion Weekends and PDHRAs). They do pay dividends.

RUBBER DUCKY

8:40 PM ET

November 16, 2009

The thin knife and the draft

We keep piling more and more on fewer and fewer. Our vaunted All Volunteer Force encourages the strong demographic drift from the single soldier to the married-with-kids kind. And we wring our hands on the suffering and pain this flawed approach yields.

With a draft, the base would be much larger, the drift back towards the single soldier, the burdens of citizenship shared and not purchased done. Oh, and we'd be a hell of a lot more reluctant to give Chicken Hawks like Cheney and Bush a free pass to embroil our nation in needless war.

The Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of a standing army. The AVF is the very essence of 'standing army.' The old guys had it right.

TYRTAIOS

9:40 PM ET

November 16, 2009

What the old guys really

What the old guys really knew, was if the Army, Navy or Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife - they'd have issued you one! : )

We both know there'll be no draft Duck. The reality is, this is the way it is. It is all too prevalent in the military today, that more service personnel are apt to be married at a younger age than their civilian counterpart, and too often to an emotionally immature partner, to say nothing of the number of single parents in today’s military.

I appreciate Tom Ricks' ideas and looking for innovative ways to deal with the continued absence of a spouse and/or parent. The parent command can only do so much since accomplishment of the mission takes priority (though the welfare of your men and women is secondary).

I like one respondent’s idea that civilian institutions should be encouraged to dedicate resources to lessening the bureaucratic down time an active duty deployed member's spouse has to spend trying to conduct business on behalf of their spouse - after all, we haven't levied a war surtax as we did in Vietnam - that's the least they could do to show support and lessen the burden.

IRR SOLDIER...

9:59 PM ET

November 16, 2009

Rubber Ducky, You raise

Rubber Ducky,

You raise excellent points. While I appreciate the sincerity of Tom's ideas, I am concerned that these gestures would further the development of a "military caste" within our nation - a "caste" that is afforded greater priviliges, rewards and benefits than the society it serves. You are correct, the "old guys had it right" and the currently evolving "warrior caste" is as abhorent to our Framers ideals as the All-volunteer force.

In discussing potential "fixes" to prevent/avoid another Ft. Hood-like tragedy or to decraese suicides, two possible solutions completely are ignored: 1) revisit the 4 year enlistment as the "standard" term of service during wartime; and 2) reconsider the Army's policy of 100% Point-of-sale job/MOS reservation during a time of war. I suspect that these common sense considerations are "off the table" because they are potential threats to the existing AVF paradigm.

1) I would suggest that the current "standard" 4 year enlistment during wartime is unconscionable. As studies have shown since WWII, resiliency degrades the longer a soldier is exposed to combat and the frequency of adverse stress reactions increases with each deployment. Under the 4 year enlistment model, a new Army soldier will likely see 2 combat deployments and a new Marine may see as many as four. Is this fair? Is it ethically defensible for a nation of over 300 million when we know the adverse outcomes that come with continued exposure to combat? Should we provide an opportunity for young people to enlist, serve overseas honorably for a combat tour and then elect to leave the service or volunteer for more? Given today's OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO, 4 years is an awfully long time and entails a hell of a lot of suffering, risk and deprivation. In Vietnam, volunteers and draftees alike could expect to see no more than one, 365 day combat tour unless they affirmatively volunteered for more.

Unfortunately, the All Volunteer Force demands that we extract the maximum length of service from a shallow pool of volunteers. The fact that senior leaders place the "health of the AVF" over the health of soldiers is worth further discussion. I have heard numerous senior leaders (e.g. LTGs Stultz and Rochelle) talk about the imperative of "saving the AVF" without any discussion of its consequences on those volunteers.

We learned an amazing amount about Combat stress during and after WWII. Interestingly, we are ignoring many of these lessons because the "fixes" don't square with the AVF paradigm of "doing more with less." I read a Psychiatric study from 1944 that talked about stress among bomber crews in Europe. After a pre-designated number of missions (I think 5 or 7), crew members could request to be removed from flying status and they would perform ground duties. I was amazed when I read this. We actually handled such things more humanely (in some ways) 65 years ago. Of course, there is no opportunity to allow citizen-soldiers who have served over 750 days in combat to "tap out" on Tour #3 when they reach their limits as human beings - the AVF model won't allow it.

2) Currently, the Army is the only service that guarantees 100% job/MOS reservation to its enlistees before they ever spend one hour in a military uniform. While a great policy to have in order to attract volunteers, Point-of-Sale Job/MOS reservation may be no way to manage an Army during war. Given the ongoing demands in Iraq and A'stan, can we afford an entirely self-selecting Infantry or Cavalry community drawn of volunteers who made these decisions before even going to basic training? From my vantage, we would benefit by allocating talent, aptitude, temperament and personalities where they are best suited during a counterinsurgency campaign. Logic dictates that the Army may want some time to evaluate, assess and observe incoming Privates for a few weeks before assigning them to 4 years of service in the Infantry and 2 combat tours. Having civilian 18-24 year-old kids choose this path from the abstraction of a recruitng office or MEPS center may not be the wisest policy to pairing innate resilience with mission requirements.

ZATHRAS

1:53 AM ET

November 17, 2009

The Needs of the Few

I hate to point out the obvious, but this discussion is necessarily about temporary expedients for the military to consider until we are no longer trying to sustain two massive overseas combat deployments.

Most of the personnel welfare issues considered here would be a great deal easier to manage, both for the services and their men and women, if we were deploying many fewer units overseas. The services' leadership may well be thinking whether it is appropriate to respond to the current emergency with permanent changes of policy. The other side of that coin, of course, is the question of when the staggering demands on a relatively small number of military personnel and their families starts to influence how long we want to keep a lot of damned Arabs from killing one another.

HUNTER

12:44 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Draft, schmaft

The draft is ethically wrong. How can you hold a gun to a citizen's head and say 'go to war or go to jail?' Either way you are using the threat of violence to compel a man/woman to go to a theater in order to be exposed to...wait for it... violence.

Furthermore, as an officer in the military (and a member of an extremely military family), I know it is hard enough to keep volunteers motivated and disciplined. I shudder to think what the Army would be like if circumstances were different and I had to deal with brats who REALLY never wanted to be there. Funny thing is, I don't have to think about it, all I have to do is see what the Army was like in Vietnam and the nadir after it leading into the 80s.

War is a marketplace, like any other. If our nation was truly threatened or the cause was truly just we would have all the volunteers we would need. You can keep your draft.

I am all in favor of the citizen base contributing more to the war effort - instead of going to the mall, perhaps they could carpool, recycle, grow victory gardens, or make a meal for the RC family next door....do anything but watch the war on TV. Oh and that sticker on the back of your SUV, if that's all you have done to show your "support", well shove it up your.... Thanks.

IRR SOLDIER...

2:09 PM ET

November 17, 2009

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Hunter,

I couldn't disagree with your post more strongly. You call the draft "ethically wrong". Okay, what the hell do you call the repeated deployment of first-term personnel to combat when we have nearly 70 years of evidence that shows an increased correlation of adverse stress reactions to prolonged combat exposure? Seriously. I think that maintaining the four year enlistment as a norm during wartime may enter an ethical gray zone given that we know that tour #s 2 and 3 will have an increasing adverse effect on our soldiers and Marines.

In your dismissal of the draft, I implore you to go learn more about the history of your own Army. The facts show that during Vietnam draftees had a far lower incidence of AWOL and Desertion than their RA, volunteer counterparts. Charles Moskos (RIP) did a very thorough job of pointing this out in his 2003 monograph, "Patriotism-Lite Meets the Citizen-Soldier." As we've seen time and again, the desire of folks to cooperate, work together and survive is a pretty strong motivator towards unit cohesion.

Your broadside about our Army in Vietnam is misinformed. There were many contributing factors to what happened in the late stages of Vietnam - social upheaval, declining domestic support, an eviscerated and worn out NCO Corps, etc. To blame the "draft" for the state of the Army in the 1970's does a disservice to our service's history. It may be helpful to remember that Lt. Col Hal Moore's troopers in the Ia Drang Valley were a hybrid of draftees and volunteers. Ditto for all those guys in the 9th ID down in the Mekong, the 173rd at Dak To and the 101st at Hamburger Hill. How about those troopers from the 11th ACR in 1970 who were recognized with the PUC at the White House a few weeks back? The service records of these units should not be denigrated because of what happened to the Army in 1971.

HUNTER

8:49 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Of course

You are free to disagree...As am I. Yes, it is clear that the burden rides heavily on those soldiers who are in the AVF.

Your post brings up many concerns, that are legitimate... but it doesn't answer why someone in the civilian populace should have the government hold a gun to their head and say "go to war or go to jail". In effect lose your freedom to your life and go somewhere where you may lose your life for a cause you may not feel is justified.

And I say all these things as a multiple deployer, and a recent commander who bears the burdens you speak of - and still doesn't want draftees in my organization....for the reasons both ethical and operational.

As to your point about "adverse stress reactions to prolonged combat exposure" there are many ways to mitigate these problems which are only now (8 years later) being investigated. Witness the Resiliency Center Campus (RCC) at Fort Hood (please Google it).

We do a poor job of preparing our soldiers mentally prior to the fight and then wonder why they have so many problems afterwards. The RCC is a step in the right direction. Or lets investigate the numbers of soldiers in the AVF that still haven't deployed ANYWHERE in 8 years of sustained combat. I've read numbers as high as 40% have never gone anywhere. Or I could regale you for days about the bloated General Staffs that lounge in the various Combat Component Commands in a force that still hasn't balanced its enlisted to officer ratios since post WWII.

Bottom line on that: we are our own worst enemy and until the military learns to better manage their own personnel and take care of the people who volunteered to serve they sure as shit shouldn't ask to draft them.

IRR SOLDIER...

9:18 PM ET

November 17, 2009

A lot of old saws in one post ...

Hunter,

You can have as many ethical issues with a draft as you want to. My point is that knowing the correlation between the length of exposure to incidence of adverse stress reactions poses an ethical dilemma - knowingly deploying first-termers on multiple occassions when the likelihood of negative outcomes increases each time. I also have grave ethical issues with a system that "sells" the glamour, benefits and attributes of military career fields prior to an applicant spending even one day in an Army uniform. We "sell" a job or a kid self-selects for an MOS and then they are stuck in that position for two or more combat tours even if their temperment, skills and personality reveal themselves as a "bad fit" in week 1 on Sand Hill. Since the AVF is built around extracting the maximum service commitment from minimal numbers of people, the premium we put on deploying soldiers with "issues" is problematic. We've covered this ground before and the Denver post did a great expose of what happened in the 4th ID a few years back.

Again, we have decades of research and experience in this area, but many of the remedies available (e.g. reassignment to lower stress duty or seperation before a soldier goes "over the edge") are unavailable to us because the AVF structure can not afford to lose that many people without available back fill.

I salute COL Rabena and the Resilliency Campus at Ft. Hood. That said, it is a mere band-aid aid on a complex trauma patient. The Center does not change the fact that humans can only "take" so much and that some people have a higher threshold than others. With an AVF you are forced to take who you can get to join and who from that pool is qualified - this may not always be the population most suited to wage war on behalf of a nation of 300 million.

"Officer bloat", yadda, yadda. Heard it all before. Who will perform those tasks instead? If we had cut further on officer accessions, say, a decade ago, we would be even futher in the hole on Field Grade manning than we are now. By narrowing the numbers of who you commission, you grow increasingly dependent on this "caste" of self-selecters to persist for a career and deploy gain, and again, and again. Again, a trait if the AVF - maximum service from minimal people. This is no way to build redundency or the possibility of rapid expansion into a system.

Re: Non-deployers. I don't see this as an issue at the Company Grade or SSG and below level. Sure, there are many field grades that haven't deployed. So what? What good is accomplished by deploying ORSA specialists, FAOs, Space officers, senior AG personnel, etc. to Iraq if there is no need for their skill sets or grade? I understand your plea for equity, but it makes little sense when folks are adding value in the slots they currently fill. What are we going to do, deploy AG COLs as Battalion S-1s or Acquistion Corps LTCs who happen to be combat arms basic branch officers as "battle captains" in a misguided effort to "make them feel the pain?".

HUNTER

1:19 PM ET

November 18, 2009

Hummana, hummana, hummana

There is no real point in responding again. You diagree with my comments and I disagree with yours. I could counter everyone of your arguments here and clarify further but the fact is that you are pre-disposed to one conclusion. That a draft is the solution to the problem.

And yet you still haven't bothered to explain how a draft is an ethical means to build a force structure....because it isn't.

I am 100% volunteer ready to do my duty - and go back as many times as required of me. But if I was a civilian and had no such desire and you told me that I could go to war or go to jail I would tell you exactly where to shove it.

IRR SOLDIER...

2:58 PM ET

November 18, 2009

I think the draft is a

I think the draft is a perfectly ethical means of supporting military operations if they are viewed as an existential threat to the safety and security of the U.S. If an unstable Iraq and Afghanistan are seen as those threats, then I don't understand how anyone could not want us to leverage our most talented citizenry to assist in these efforts. Unlike the current AVF arrangement, I think that under a selective service system a national consensus will develop very quickly that an unstable Iraq and A'stan are not the threats that war hawks at places like CNAS make them out to be. To preserve "freedom of action", supporters of the current arrangement of "deploy first, justify later" view the sustainment of the AVF as a high priority - even if it harms soldiers and Marines in the process.

If I recall correctly, over 90% of the Army's enlisted personnel in WWII were draftees.

As these conflicts continue and the adverse impacts on our current soldiers and Marines become more apparent in the form of PTSD, suicides and family problems, I am increasingly viewing the current system as an unethical way of fielding a wartime Army and Marine Corps. Given what we're seeing in our own troops, I don't see any way to defend a system that depends on sending first term Marines to combat 3 or 4 times and soldiers twice (or 3 times on stop loss) in a single enlistment. We are just asking for trouble and potentially harming people and families willing to serve their country for life.

I think that it's wonderful that you are willing deploy on endless occasions. Unfortunately, there are insufficient numbers of people at the proper grades and skill levels willing to join you. This is essential to keep in mind before touting the knee-jerk, "AVF love-it-or-leave-it" mantra. The USAR is about 52% strength on CPTs and less than 60% strength on E-7s. To "conserve the fighting strength", we are deploying soldiers who should not be deployed and using prescription drug "solutions" to get them through their deployments. We cannot allow recent recruiting "success" at the initial entry levels to mask the reality that we are increasingly hollow force at the mid-grade officer and senior NCO levels - especially in the reserve components. We are seeing the relaxing of commission standards coupled with virtually automatic promotions to LTC and that is not a good thing.

HUNTER

3:49 PM ET

November 18, 2009

Thank You

At least you answered the question at hand. You also showed your true stance. You have no desire to use a drafted force - you indicated as much by saying you simply want the draft to be the leverage against the "war hawks at places like CNAS." So the threat of drafting people into an enlistment they don't want is sufficient for you? And you believe that is ethical to boot?

I don't think that Iraq was ever an existential threat, and Afghanistan wasn't much more of one. Having said that "war is diplomacy by other means." The Taliban refused to give up the intra-national actors of Al Queda and suffered the consequences. That was the nominal reason there...we all know there were plenty of interior reasons too - for both Afghanistan and Iraq. Yep our guvmint does nasty things too, go figure.

My original post mentioned that when the cause is just and of sufficient gravity the citizenry will rally to the cause. (As you mentioned) In World War II that is exactly what happened, of course many volunteered and many were drafted - how many draftees would have volunteered...we'll never know.

The American populace was not even asked to do so for Afghanistan or Iraq, indeed they were told to do the opposite. Please continue your lives while we do our dirty work behind the curtain. Go to the mall, here's a sticker for your SUV.

Finally, for many of the statistics you state I can show you a counter one. How about a state National Guard that is overstrength by 10% and culling the ranks of the fat and unfit (thankfully) to get down to their authorized numbers?.

You commented that those high ranking guys who don't fit in the required slots in OIF/OEF shouldn't be forced to go out of some misguided need to "share the pain", but isn't that exactly what you are asking of the populace as a whole when you are calling for a draft?

(My contention is that every soldier is a rifleman first. You didn't seem to care about Officer bloat but I assure you that the military's own problems feed the systemic ones. Cull the Generals first. Take things down to an appropriate force structure where you don't have more Generals in USAREUR for every tank/infantry company in USAREUR (this is just one true example). Magically you just freed up alot of soldiers in those multiple layered general staffs - the ones hunkered down at Macdill, or Stuttgart, or wherever. Retrain them or re-distribute their low-density MOSs to the warfighter ones required on the front lines. Make everyone do their part, rather than just sending the same guys over and over again. Those JAGs are needed on the front lines to develop a working judicial system in Iraq/Afghanistan. "We keep you alive to serve this ship, so row well and live." Stop mismanaging the force. I can go on and on - I live it every day. I can give examples til both our eyes glaze over.)

But none of that mismanagement matters to you because you just want the draft tripwire to nominally save a force that can't save themselves. Screw that.

I think some of the concerns you bring up are important - but perhaps overstated as well. Our force is better cared for than it ever has been - but there is always room for better still. The rotation policy is grave and it can be damaging to families - but that can be ameliorated by properly managing the force as a whole. But I find it counter-intuitive to say "We are just asking for trouble and potentially harming people and families willing to serve their country for life"...um isn't that war does anyway? Guess we have to weight that risk ahead of time when determining those 'existential' threats huh?

If we wanted to do this right we should have declared a total war and sent the AVF troops en masse and brought them home when the war is over, over there. But our nation doesn't do limited war very well and we are seeing the long-term consequences. Oh well. Funny, a guy named Shinseki recommended something closer to that. They didn't listen to him, and he didn't have the stones to make an issue of it.

Still no reason to subject an unwilling citizen to the draft.

IRR SOLDIER...

4:44 PM ET

November 18, 2009

A very good post ...

Hunter,

I appreciate your post and it better illustrates your positions. For starters, I do not consider selective service (aka. the draft) a red herring. I fundamentally support the concept of a hybrid draftee-volunteer force as a means of connecting the military to the citizenry it serves and ensuring that the military attracts a wide range of talent, perspective and ability. For a nation of over 300 million people and a world leader, we actually have a pretty poor means of ensuring the folks that we need in the military actually find their way into the military. That can be argued in another post.

Re: National Guard "overstrength". I take a very different perspective on that and it is really important to address the state(s) in question because I think the issue is far more complex. I would argue that the assigned ARNG strength levels are artifically low for a number of states that just so happen to be located in the Northeast and on the West Coast. What do I mean? New York has over 19 million people yet it assigned an ARNG endstrength of ~9,500. Would you believe that Mississippi with less than 3 million people is authorized an ARNG of virtually the same size? North Dakota has less than 700,000 people yet it has an ARNG endstrength of 3,235 - the same size as the much more populous state of Connecticut. This is a complex argument, so I hope I don't screw it up in retelling. What I'm getting at is that under the AVF system, "Big Army" and the NGB have decided that some states are "too hard" to recruit in so they adjust their recruiting missions and endstrength goals downward accordingly. This is problematic because it diminishes the military's presence in leading areas of our country and deprives citizens of service opportunities in the very states with higher levels of educational attainment, fitness and diversity. In short, the system strip mines sites like Alabama and South Dakota to fill huge ARNG endstrengths while avoiding having to make genuine and culturally appropriate efforts to draw New Yorkers and New Jerseyans into uniform at rates approximating their percentage of the service eligible population. Bottom line: the Reserve components are designed to be the sinews that bind our military to the civilain populace. When those components (most especially the ARNG) are even less geographically representative than the RA force, a second look is needed.

Getting back to the "too many staff people" argument, I just don't see the issue. How many CPTs, LTs, SSGs and SGTs are even assigned to these staffs? Very few. When I go to the Pentagon, I don't see very many Army Company grade officers. We've already cut the TDA Army to the bone and we are seeing the consequences of the military-civilian and military-contractor conversions in the early 1990s. By further cutting these positions, you offer career officers and NCOs one less opportunity to "take a knee" and "reacquaint with their families" before deploying again. Our senior leaders in the 1930s and 40s recognized the need for a robust and intellecually vibrant institutional Army. We should not shortchange that legacy the way we are.

I want to make clear that when I talk about "just asking for trouble and potentially harming people and families willing to serve their country for life" I am talking about the expectation of subjecting soldiers to repeated deployments just to fulfill their first enlistment obligations. We have data that shows that the second, and especially the third deployments are very tough on soldiers and families. Given that, shouldn't we have shorter terms of service during wartime and allow soldiers who served honorably to go home with honor if they choose instead of drugging them up on Meds and sending them back to OIF/OEF for another year? I think logic and an honest look at lessons learned would suggest this is the way to go. Unfortunately, the AVF construct will not allow it because shorter enlistments would require more people than we can attract - even with bonuses and lowered enlistment standards.

Again, you raise good points and I am enjoying this dialogue.

HUNTER

6:34 PM ET

November 18, 2009

Thanks again

I think the two of us agree on more things than we disagree, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the big 'draft' topic. Your points are good and I certainly understand the merits of a culture not separated from the constituency they serve.

Make no mistake, I don't relish the idea of repeated trips, it's hard on the families - indeed it is hard on my family (I have deployed twice since 9/11 - once for 9+ months from Oct 03-Jul 04 and once for 12+ months from Dec 07- Dec 08). But it is what we signed up for, and there are a whole lot of soldiers raising their right hand to re-enlist knowing full well what that means for them. God bless them all, they're the reason my job is so easy and so fulfilling. I certainly don't wish them harm, but I know the mission takes priority.

Yes, good dialogue. But perhaps time to move on to another argument.

RUBBER DUCKY

3:06 PM ET

November 17, 2009

The alternative?

The alternative to a military based in and comprising citizen soldiers is a mercenary force. I prefer the former. The AVF is uncomfortably close to the latter. The old guys had it right.

SHANE HUANG

9:59 PM ET

November 16, 2009

I like these

I like most of these suggestions. It's my understanding that FRGs already provide a lot of this informal support for each other, to include childcare and help with food, etc. Unfortunately, the availability and quality of this informal support system is highly variable from unit to unit. I second some of the above suggestions to further formalize the FRG system and fund them directly from Big Army.

However, for us single soldiers, deployment is tougher in certain ways. Married soldiers get paid a lot more than soldiers who merely live with a significant other. I happened to get great support from my siblings and parents when I was deployed, but not every single soldier has that available. When your identity is stolen or a mistake is made with some account (cell phones, utilities, banking, etc.), cleaning that kind of mess up is a lot harder for the single soldier. If we're going to have these frequent deployments, there needs to be a better support system back home for deployed single soldiers (and guys whose marriages don't make it through the deployment).

PETERINDC

2:12 AM ET

November 17, 2009

Single Soldiers

I agree with Shane generally that the military continuously subsidizes marriage at the expense of the welfare of their 'single Joes'. That being said, when a Soldier has a pay/stolen identity/financial crisis, that is the role of the NCO to ensure that they are squared away as soon as possible.

SHANE HUANG

3:47 AM ET

November 20, 2009

Absolutely

The problem isn't so much that single Soldiers have difficulties finding time to fix these issues, it's that the Soldier has difficulty noticing the issue. For me, I happened to find out about fraudulent debit card charges cleaning out my checking account through a phone call with my mother, who was regularly monitoring my accounts for me. Another NCO in my platoon had several cell phone accounts opened in his name, and he didn't notice until he came home months later.

STARBUCK

8:44 PM ET

November 17, 2009

When I was a commander, I had

When I was a commander, I had Soldiers who came from all sorts of familiy situations--married, kids, single parents, dual military, special needs children, female soldier/male spouse, and singles. I tried to tailor my FRG to accomodate all families, not just the traditional male soldier/female stay-at-home spouse. Indeed, I see this as one of the greatest command challenges--accomodating all types of families.

Although I certainly won't say that singles experience difficulties on par with those who are married with children (sometimes on WIC and food stamps), we come with unique challenges. Sometimes I'm even envious of married people. Until I realize how awesome it is being single, and then I laugh at them incessantly. :)

Being a single Soldier myself, I often found myself receiving absolutely nothing from the FRG. Many FRGs have traditionally seen themselves as a "wives social club", although this has changed significantly in recent years. Singles that deploy--particularly in units which deploy very rapidly like the 82nd--often have difficulty managing their affairs at home. Issues like vehicle registration, storage of property, and miscellaneous administrative matters are sometimes difficult for singles to take care of. Following deployment, it takes a while for singles to manage their personal affairs. After a large training exercise, I often find myself needing a day just to pick up my mail and everything that I couldn't do for a month.

The Army's "take care of families" initiatives also sometimes encourages reckless marriage among young soldiers. If you are a single soldier who lives in the barracks, life can be rough. If the alarm in the arms room fails on a weekend, or the CSM feels he needs to have his grass mowed, guess who gets pulled out of their comfortable beds. That's right, the single people in the barracks. Want to have privacy and some semblance of a normal life? Just get married! You get more money, live in a decent apartment, and don't have to deal with GI parties every Sunday night. It's actually quite simple--find some girl in Watertown or better yet, a chick in the barracks, and find the justice of the peace. Hell, you can even date other people so long as you remain married on paper. (Not entirely legal, but it's done)

Everyone comes with their own unique issues. It's up to commanders to ensure that taking care of families ensures that duties are spread in a fair and equitable manner. Commanders must also realize that families can come in all shapes and sizes. I found that the best thing to do was to send out e-mail distributions to all family members. Many mothers would e-mail me back to thank me for sending them an e-mail...no other commander had e-mailed the parents of single soldiers.

CAPTAIN NOVAL

3:17 AM ET

November 17, 2009

What is the purpose of an Army?

We used to have a term for these kinds of programs - "The Big Green Welfare Machine." I think they have little to do with the reason why we have an Army.

Tom's ideas, misguided Great Society-type programs they may be, but are meant well.

Pay soldiers a proper wage and most of these bells-and-whistles type programs will not be necessary. Compared to high-paid federal civilian employees, soldiers are scandalously underpaid.

IRR SOLDIER...

3:58 AM ET

November 17, 2009

Captain Noval, You've got to be kidding ...

"Compared to high-paid federal civilian employees, soldiers are scandalously underpaid."

Do you really believe this? If so, you need to get a grip on reality. I'm a federal civilian employee in DC (GS-13) and I can tell you firsthand that my military equivalent grade (MAJ/LCDR) makes a hell of a lot more money than I do. How about that Tax Free BAH and Tax Free BAS? How about that noncontributory family health plan? How about the noncontributory retirement plan?

I'm so sick of hearing how military personnel are underpaid? Objectively, our junior enlisted even make out quite well given the education level required for those positions. Let's talk an average E-3. Where in the US today can a HS grad or GED holder get paid a decent wage, receive tax free housing allowance, and get noncontributory family healthcare and retirement benefits. How about commissary privileges, income tax exemption while deployed and subsidized childcare?

When compared to the daily reality faced by civilian Americans, the military fares quite well.

I suggest that you look at your BAH, BAS and CONUS COLA tables before saying that Federal civilians are "getting over" on the military. When compared with their GS/WG peers, military almost always come out on top in overall federal compensation.

Your sentiments are exactly what I have in mind when I warn of the emergence of a "warrior caste" in our society. The military currently enjoys benefits that their fellow citizens (of similar training and education) can only dream of, yet all we hear is incessant braying of how poorly compensated they are.

TYRTAIOS

5:55 AM ET

November 17, 2009

Apples & Oranges

Much of what you say is true IRR Soldier, but keep it in context - just a few thoughts.

True enough the military member has medical care. But remember, we're talking married folks now, and he or she must purchase Tricare Prime for his/her dependents, not to mention a dental program, etc., that isn't covered by Tricare. Your medical/dental program ain't too bad.

In addition, military personal work more extended hours, nights, weekends, deployments away from families, etc., and there is no increase in base pay. A civilian would get double and triple time during those same periods.

Lastly, once you get out of D.C. and into the operating forces, you'll find squad leaders, company commanders are worth every damn dime we're paying them - more so than their GS counterparts - now some staff officers - that's a differant story! :}

STARBUCK

8:49 PM ET

November 17, 2009

It depends on the job. I had

It depends on the job. I had a number of crew chiefs get out of the military and begin working for contractors such as DS2 in Iraq for considerably more money for the exact same work (minus standing in formation, doing PT, shaving, pulling weeds, etc)

CAPTAIN NOVAL

12:41 PM ET

November 18, 2009

Compared to soldiers, civilians are overpaid

A GS-13 is about equivalent to an E7, Sergeant First Class or Chief Petty Officer in the Navy. A GS 13 pulls down $100K a year, depending on their longevity. An E7 makes about $60K all in, again depending on their longevity.

It's rare to see an E7 who works less than an average of 60 hours a week. It's rare to see a GS-13 who works 30 hours a week, let alone the 40 hours a week they get paid. But even if we assume the civilian employee works all those hours they get paid, they make about $48 an hour. They also get to sleep in their own bed virtually every night, get 5% matching funds in their TSP, and rarely are separated from their families, et cetera.

The E7 makes about $19 an hour, about 40% of what a GS-13 makes. And we know that one of their real occupational hazards is sudden death.

A claim could be made that high-grade field officers make a decent, if not generous wage. But please don't try and make the ludicrous claim that the enlisteds and NCOs are paid the same as civilian counterparts. It's a bullshit argument.

Signed,
-A former enlisted, former NCO, former company grade officer and current high-paid civilian federal employee.

IRR SOLDIER...

2:34 PM ET

November 18, 2009

Sounds Like Club for Growth talking Points to Me ...

Captain Noval,

Nice anti-federal employee screed there. I don't know where you get the impression that an E-7 is a GS-13 equivalent. You couldn't be more wrong on that one. Generally, a GS-13 is considered to be the equivalent of an O-4. A GS-14 is "generally" seen as an O-5 equivalent. And a GS-15 is roughly equal to a COL.

I'd be interested in seeing what happens if you even tried to have an E-7 do an annual performance appraisal on a GS-12. In a bargaining unit the AFGE would be all over you with both feet and in an FLRA exempt shop, the GS-12 would have one hell of a grievance. In our office they tried to have an O-4 rate a GS-14. Guess what, it couldn't be done. In reality, an E-7 is seen as the equivalent of a GS-7 or GS-9 depending on responsibilities and duty position.

By comparing the pay scale of civilian, field grade equivalents to those of military NCOs you potentially misinform readers who may not be aware of the vagaries of the Federal service.

The following is such anti-federal employee poison that it merits its own response:

"It's rare to see a GS-13 who works 30 hours a week, let alone the 40 hours a week they get paid. But even if we assume the civilian employee works all those hours they get paid, they make about $48 an hour. They also get to sleep in their own bed virtually every night, get 5% matching funds in their TSP, and rarely are separated from their families, et cetera."

My, what a broad brush to paint most GS-13s with. I'd love to work only 30 hours a week and get paid for forty. Last time I checked, civilian federal employees are being paid to perform a mission at their assigned duty station. Therefore, I don't see how they are "getting over" by "sleeping in their own beds." Civilian service is not the military. If GS civilian life is so great, military personnel are more than welcome to use their veterans preference and apply for one of those jobs. Oh yes, the 5% TSP match. Holy cow ... what a windfall!! You conveniently ignore the uniformed military's non-contributory, "20 and out" pension plan that comes along with TRICARE for life. From any objective viewpoint, that blows any FERS or CSRS retirement plan out of the water.

MOMMYSOLDIER

7:37 AM ET

November 17, 2009

Oranges and lettuce

IRR Soldier's idea about a "warrior caste" is intriguing, but irrelevant. Let me belabor the point by saying I'd like to sign up to be a charter member of the warrior caste. Special bennies? Bring 'em on! How can you argue against finding new ways of making it easier to deal with the homefront while you're trying to find a way out of the standard four year enlistment or 100% job guarantee (the veracity of which I'd like to see current recruiting policy proof of...)?
I'm half of a dual-military family. Collectively, we've deployed three times since 2005. That's about average in our circle, save that ours are spread over two soldiers. My husband spent the end of 2007, all of 2008, and a month of this year deployed. I stayed home with two kids and my own military career. Without intending to give a huge shout-out to my army wife compatriots, it is FAR easier to go than stay.
Before this last extended deployment, I considered myself pretty much capable of dealing with anything. Now, not so much.
To finally get to the point, Tom, the idea about meals delivered is great. The improvements at the child care centers have been astronomical, but we don't use child care centers, so how about going with the idea of child care vouchers for use at a variety of vendors? How about memberships to gyms that have on-site child care? How about, as suggested in the WaPo article, easy access to counseling and other mental health resources (On-line does NOT cut it)? How about giving dual military families the option of a year out for the non-deployed spouse to stay at home with the kiddos (I know, REALLY narrow population, but it could be applied to working spouses; might also create a short-term civilian job)? How about going with IRR Soldier's WWII idea of providing the option for alternative service to deal with Soldier and family stress? How about going with the Patton idea of getting some other poor (Allied) bastard to deploy for his country? ;)
How about affecting a WWII-style full country mobilization behind the Soldiers and their families who actually feel this war? That wouldn't cost much at all.

USAR MAJ RICK

11:28 AM ET

November 17, 2009

Great ideas but what about Reserve spouses

Tom,

Great ideas but again, the blinders are on. How about the spouses of the Reserve and Guard? My wife has been a real trooper during my 3 overseas deployments to the middle east. However, she is reaching her limit. I can only preach the benefits that we receive for so long. No one ever thought that we would be an "operational" reserve, strightly a "strategic" reserve when I married my wife 20 years ago. I'm not complaining, I love to Soldier, but our spouses never expecected this. Many of those I know that have gotten out since '03 have gotten out due to pressure from spouses and kids. The Reserve and Guard families have truly been the unsung heros of the long war. While the AC has their friends on post, our wifes have little sympathy from our friends or neighbors (unless they happen to be Reserve or Guard spouses). While I am at war, my neighbors are at the mall, the ball game, etc...

LONGTIMER

12:50 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Family Support Ideas

After reading the link on the early bird today I said I must go to the Rick's site to see the hundreds of supportive comments. Of the 18 responses, just a few in support. I have to say I'm surprised. Whether your arguements are: Doesn't work for reservists, Not good for singles, Doesn't work for off-base daycare, shorter deployments, larger military, etc. You've got to be kidding. All these ideas are good and in relative terms, cheap. Why would you argue against anything that would provide more/better support for military families?

MOLLY KRANC

1:41 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Thanks Longtimer!

There is no silver bullet to ease the strain on military families but I appreciate the ideas mentioned in the post here.

We're nine months into our third deployment now and I think things have come a long way since our first in '03. The biggest change that has had a significant impact for me is the 16 hours of respite care alloted per child per month. Getting to utilize this has enabled me to go to the gym for a much needed mental health break. I'd like to think this benefit could easily be extended (through vouchers) to Guard and Reserve families who have shouldered an even heavier burden than active duty folks.

I can understand the comments made by the naysayers here but I think it's important to understand that todays volunteer military families aren't looking for handouts, they want to have the tools and resources to be able to take care of themselves and their families.

SOLDIERBOY88

3:30 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Family re-integration is also needed

Dear Mr. Ricks,

Writing you with an idea I think DOD could implement to aid the re-integration process of re-deployment.

I think the military should offer 3-4 day cruises for military families returning from overseas combat assignments. During the 3-4 day cruise, the husband / wives would attend Chaplain led seminars similar to the Strong Bonds program during the ships days out at seas. When in port, families could sight see.

Advantages to this are: [1] the logistical strains of re-integration are gone: no dishes, prepping of meals, making of beds, etc.; [2] families get to talk while enjoying traveling together; [3] quality day care is provided by the ship if needed; and [4] our nation treats the service member and his family like royalty after service to their country.

What results: [1] military families are strengthened; [2] when families are taken care of, re-enlistment rates rise; [3] graduates of the Strong Bonds Chaplain program report a higher rate of marital happiness; fewer cases of domestic incidents, and more work-place productivity.

Thanks for letting me share,
LTC Jim Orbock

S0C7

5:59 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Not so much

Not that I would turn down a free cruise...but having suffered thru a Chaplin led Couple's Retreat weekend, these retreats are a band-aid for a slit throat. I will never forget the sargeant that complained, rather angrily, that his since his return, it drove drove him crazy that his kids seemed to have less respect for him than his soldiers. They did not obey his orders. Rather than address the issue of returning and adjusting to a civilian environment. The Chaplin joked "Honey, if you can get kids to ever obey you let me know...ha ha ha." Sick. I also recall her saying "We don't cover sex and intimacy issues." Say what? That is a huge driver, perhaps THE driver, in military divorces. How naive to just ignore that.

Now, small groups, with mental health PROFESSIONALS, and regular follow ups...sure. Chaplin led large groups armed with Powerpoint, nah.

S0C7

6:04 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Hate it when I do that

sergeant, not sargeant.

HUNTER

9:02 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Family reintegration

Is the Guard really ahead on this? Again, the National Guard, at least in my State has a mandatory reintegration weekend...even for single soldiers. It's not a cruise but it is two nights in a hotel (F, Sa, Su) with a day and a half of presentations (Tricare brief, Strong Bonds brief, Sucicide Prevention, etc.) mental health professionals, group style talks (spouses in one room, soldiers in another), available childcare and program (for the older kids facing reunion issues). Breakfast and Lunch were served each day, hotel and travel were also paid on orders. Families enjoyed dinners out together and probably more partying than they should during the evenings.

Its not a bad deal, and most family members coming out of it said "Why didn't we do something like this BEFORE the deployment...because of all the information they got." (Note: We did do things similar but we couldn't make those things mandatory or finance it the way this program was)

S0C7

1:27 PM ET

November 18, 2009

Sounds like things have improved

Perhaps my negativity was misplaced a bit. The retreat we went to was in '06, and for Army Reserve.

My further 2 cents...I hope that there is more focus for family members on the homefront. Obivously, a lot of attention is paid to helping the soldier adapt. But folks on the homefront have lot to deal with as well, and need help. It is the homefront that has to pay the bills, have teacher conferences, deal with family issues. Often these issues are kept from the soldier, and the buildup and can lead to feeling abandon and bitter.

Finally, we as a society and a country, especially males, are looking to FIX problems. How to do we FIX the mental health problems in the military in this multi-theatre, multi-deployment environment? More therapy? Sometimes, things cannot simply be fixed. The true FIX is fewer, shorter deployments, and a shorter conflict. I am not saying we just throw our hands up and give up. But, (and this is uncomfotable to write) maybe we have asked too much from an AVF. Maybe we have discovered the limit to how far an AVF can be pushed in a 'war of choice'. I admit I have more questions than answers. I hope folks way smarter than I are working on it.

CASSK

6:02 PM ET

November 17, 2009

How to lessen the strain of deployment

Rick,

Since I've mostly lived overseas with the Army I can't tell you what is done at US bases, however, you should check with USAG Wiesbaden in Germany. There were plenty of programs and initiatives during the deployments to include a family night at the Dining Facility; Parents Night Out involved evening day care availability for a few hours to allow the parent time to do shopping, errands or just enjoy an evening out; fitness and wellness classes at the base gym (which included day care at times), and much more. Family Readiness Groups were completely involved and even met with community leaders to discuss, plan and implement activities which you mentioned in your article.

DONBOWMAN

9:33 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Things that worked before

There are two areas not having to do with combat directly in which an officer can earn the loyalty of his soldiers. They are visiting the sick and being sure the families left behind are protected and supported.

May I suggest some sort of concierge or ombudsman's
office that spouses could have direct access to for problem solving and "how to" information lodged at a level that has the power to make things happen.

There are many kinds of transactions where the fair sex is at a disadvantage such as auto repair, moving, contractors etc. Back when I commanded a battalion at Fort Benning, every time a wife of one of my officers or NCOs moved I had one of my officers or NCOs present, if the husband could not be there. It made all the difference in the way the people behaved who delivered the service. We also drove pregnant wives to the hospital, if hubby was not available.

I got more grateful comments at social functions from the wives over those two things than any other effort we put into family support. They KNEW somebody gave a damn about them. I think the retired community might pick up this ball and really run with it, if it is put out to us as a volunteer mission.

MEG

11:36 PM ET

November 17, 2009

Supporting families

There are a lot of really good ideas here.

Things on which I differ:

1. I don't consider what we have in the United States military an all volunteer force. If they are volunteering before age 25, the frontal cortex is not working. They think they are invulnerable.

2. A draft doesn't have to be solely for the military. A tough couple of years of service to the country could be done in a variety of ways, and would be good for individuals and for our democracy.

Back to the suggestions, I especially like the ombudsman/concierge approach and the idea of civilian institutions helping military families with their bureaucracy.

some examples of this need follow; read on only if you like flagrant bureacratic nightmares:

It's not just dealing with normal bureaucracy. What some individuals and institutions do to take advantage of military families is shameful. This is what we are dealing with for a military son right now:

Bank and credit card errors run amok--even when it is an admitted bank error, without us there and on it, they would have kept on his record thousands of dollars in unwarranted fees; they can cancel his only card, or, alternatively jack up rates, etc., when the deployed has no way of taking care of the problem. A rental deposit are illegally not returned--what's he gonna do when he's unavailable, huh?

Wallet's stolen, he goes to DMV for replacement wallet on a precious day off. New license never arrives, and meanwhile, temporary licence expires. He can't legally drive, rent a car or show picture ID until he has a new one. After more than 6 phone calls and finally a personal visit to the DMV, the family is told that it is illegal for the DMV to divulge anything re his license, whether it was sent or not, etc., even if they have power of attorney. He himself has to call. They are not open at any time when he has time off. Thats just too bad.

fun times. I want my own functionnaire slayer. Why can't one of those nice drill instructors visit the DMV? the bank? the sleazebag landlord?

CMEYERGO

5:52 PM ET

November 18, 2009

Games Generals Play

Since GIs earn 50-100% more than comparable Americans, money is not the problem. Please do some research before you dispute that fact. If they are over deployed, may I suggest that we deploy them less.

Its all a manpower and budget game played by the Generals, they want high optempo to justify more and more. This is why Marines are sitting around Okinawa right now for no real purpose. This is why Army Generals insist on more troops for Afghanistan, because their Iraq gig is winding down. Why do we insist that submariners deploy for six months? In case the Soviets attack?

SHANE HUANG

2:51 AM ET

November 20, 2009

What's comparable?

I agree that soldiers are paid comfortably for many of the jobs they do, but your 80-100% statistic isn't true for a lot of soldiers. Even counting the value of my barracks room (let's say at most $400/month) and the completely unused meal card in garrison (the Army says $300/month), I make a considerable amount less than my college friends.

For certain jobs, the private sector/civilian side pays quite a bit more than the military pay tables for nearly the exact same job - Arabic linguists, network administrators, etc.

LONGTIME INFANTRYMAN

10:02 PM ET

November 23, 2009

Good ideas but...

This problem can be attacked from either side: accept the inevitable and try to make the families more comfortable while the servicemember spouse/parent is deployed for 6 months to a year or more, or create an operational structure that decreases the physical absences of the uniformed family member.

While giving families of deployed members additional benefits is a nice thing to do and can likely be built into any course of action, it is oriented on making an unacceptable situation easier to deal with, not on making the situation less unacceptable. In this respect, extra benefits for family members is a band-aid over a bleeding wound, and while temporarily soothing, cannot reverse the absence of a deployed dad or mom.

The quick and easy answer is to deploy dad and mom less, or for shorter periods. Ways to do this include either increasing the size of the force by draft or growth mandate or by reducing the length of deployments while also increasing and stabilizing dwell time in between deployments.

Personally, I'm skeptical that a growth in the size of the force would decrease operational tempo, since national leaders might be tempted to use whatever forces are available to solve even more global problems "better" and/or "quicker." In Vietnam, our draft of millions and active Army of over one million still found itself with an 8-year war in that one spot. More forces might mean more wars=more deployments=no change.

If deployments are an inevitable fact of military life--and I believe they are--then we are left with how to balance "gone" time with "home" time, and my gut reaction (based on multiple deployments, a pending divorce and the tales of others) tells me that a 1:2 deployed:dwell ratio (a one-year deployment followed by two years of dwell) works for a while, maybe for two or three consecutive deployments. By then, the soldier and his/her family are at the breaking point. It should also be noted that it is fairly well-documented that every soldier and family has a threshold of acceptable number of total deployments before, for lack of a better word, breaking. I suggest three in ten years.

One-year deployments may be a big part of the problem as well. Perhaps six months is better. In any case, social scientists should determine empirically what is or is not acceptable to the majority of soldiers and their families, and this result must be balanced with operational requirements-- such as the amount of time a unit requires to become proficient at an essential task in a new theater versus time spent executing that task at a high level of proficiency.

In the end, it is the responsibility of our national leaders to understand that military forces, especially volunteer forces and their families, can be "used up" like anything else and must be managed for long-term effectiveness, morale and for some degree of family normalcy.

TIMBERLAND

7:33 AM ET

December 11, 2009

Timberland Boots

Womens Roll-Top Timberland Boots
$143.00 $83.00
Save: 42% off
Timberland Roll-Top Boots womenPremium, full-grain, waterproof leather for comfort, durability and abrasion resistance ; Direct-attach, seam-sealed, waterproof construction keep feet dry in any weather ; Quarter panel crafted with rich shearling leather and is unconstructed so it can be worn up or rolled down ; Durable laces with Taslan? fibers and rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Inside of shoe is lined with shearling - up to the toe box which is lined with breathable fabric ; Rubber lug outsole for traction and durability ; Embossed Timberland tree logo on the side ; Steel shank provides maximum support ; Waterproof

http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/