Wednesday, May 5, 2010 - 12:20 PM

Here's another comment from a military spouse. I am going to keep running these until the little grasshoppers begin to grasp that stresses on the military family may be what breaks the all-volunteer force.
"Has your dad been killed yet?"
My seven-year-old son recently revealed that a well-meaning, worried friend in his class asks him this question nearly every day. My husband is a Navy pilot serving a one-year deployment in the Middle East, and first graders at the school have written him letters and seen many photos of him; he even dressed kids in his flight gear during career day.
When my son repeated to me his friend's question, I started to wonder about the drawbacks of our outreach to the civilian community. Usually, I go out of my way to facilitate contact with non-military groups because I believe that greater public awareness of servicemembers' lives can help close the civilian-military gap in perception that has widened since the abolition of the draft. I work to bring civilians closer to the experience of military families in a time of war, with a memoir and a monthly column about our current deployment.
But it wasn't hard to convince me that the Congressional Military Family Caucus, a new group which takes a much different approach, is an important national step forward. The Congressional Military Family Caucus aims to create legislation and shape policies that will benefit military families. A combination of legislation and public awareness on behalf of military families can build morale and ease roadblocks like spouse education and employment, tax inequities stemming from residency requirements, and federal services for military children with special needs. If legislators craft policies that lighten the burden of their constituents -- in this case, military moms and dads -- America benefits from retention of the best people the Armed Forces can attract.
The connection between a strong military family and a strong military force has long been documented; in the current Administration, Michelle Obama's outreach to military families has anchored her agenda as First Lady. But the Caucus aims to formalize the connection between a strong family and a strong force. It launched last fall, and recently held its first Military Spouse Summit to help set its priorities. I was an invited speaker at the Summit, and stayed to participate. My son's comments were still fresh, and still hurt. I wasn't sure if I should share them with the group.
Seventy military spouses (chosen from an application pool of 500) from around the country traveled to the Cannon House Office Building for the event -- some of them at their own expense, others supported by their local Navy League, USO or a veterans' organization. All of the services were represented, but each spouse's name tag listed her (or his) first name only, and participants were asked not to mention their partner's rank or job.
Speakers on diverse topics such as PTSD and military-friendly voting initiatives alternated with brainstorming sessions, but I was struck most by the research findings presented by Purdue University's Military Family Research Institute MFRI's director, Shelly M. MacDermid Wadsworth, stressed that "the story of today's military families is still being written," but noted that the psychological stress and unpredictability of a servicemember's combat deployment is a "corrosive influence" on family life. Many of us in the audience nodded with recognition.
I also detected a measure of silent satisfaction -- because bringing a research specialty into the mainstream is an important step toward acknowledgement that challenges exist in the first place. Military spouses tend to be as stoic as their servicemember, so it can be hard to share struggles and challenges with each other, or determine anecdotally how serious or widespread a problem is. Rooting the Caucus' priorities in research (MFRI estimates that over 1,000 studies on military families are underway) is critical to its success.
To me, however, the most significant moment of the day never appeared on the agenda. During a lull, one of the military spouses at my table pulled that day's copy of USA Today from her bag. The headline read, "Military Health Care Costs Booming," and the story below it revealed that surging costs are prompting the Pentagon and Congress to consider the first hike in out-of-pocket fees for military retirees and some active-duty families in 15 years. Among the factors driving up costs were these two:
- Behavioral-health counseling sessions for troops and family members rose 65% since 2004. The Pentagon paid for 7.3 million visits last year -- treatment of 140,000 patients each week.
- Many new patients are children suffering anxiety or depression because of a parent away at war. Children had 42% more counseling sessions last year than in 2005.
The newspaper passed from hand to hand at our table, and each spouse frowned. I finally told a few of the women what my son's friend said to him, because several years' worth of similar comments have prompted me to seek out family counseling at various crisis points. Our visits were certainly folded into those statistics, and legislators' comments reported in the article seemed to rebuke us. It appeared that military families were being doubly punished: first by sending a family member off to war, and then for utilizing the resources made available to manage the ensuing trauma. Overusing these benefits -- though no one has ever specified what this overuse might be -- might now result in limited offerings, or higher costs for families who had been promised this care in exchange for their years of service.
The irony of reading a story about Congress cutting military family health benefits while attending a meeting of the Congressional Military Family Caucus escaped no one. The power of legislation to change lives was clear to all of us in that moment. Only one spouse spoke. "Promises have to be kept," she said. Her words might well serve as the Caucus's motto. Because if the Congressional Military Family Caucus succeeds in ensuring that the promises made to America's military families are kept -- through legislation, public awareness, or any combination of the two -- it will strengthen our forces as well as our families. Including seven-year-olds.
Thank you, Alison - That newspaper article you linked to left me stunned. Why is there surprise that military health expenditures are going up - we are AT WAR!! I suppose when only 1% of the American Public have a "dog in this fight, a boot in that sand" and maybe another 1% know anyone who does, the realities of our life don't sink home! When you send people to fight, they get hurt. When you send people to fight, their families are hurt too. Simple. Very Simple.
LAW
I am surprised you are stunned with the rise in military healthcare, since your own costs have probably risen as well?
Though this is about our active duty personnel and the impact it has on their families, it is a larger issue, since one specific area within the defense budget that is not generally thought about by many, the military personnel account or in plainer terms, the costs to attract and retain the all-volunteer force, it also includes military dependents and the retiree community as well.
Perhaps uniformed personnel should assume "some" responsiblity. This could be done by paying extra compensation in base pay toward a defined-contribution plan and could carry over into future civilian employment?
Since I'm an Army Wife, my healthcare costs are just the same as they were before. I'm shocked at the attitude that was implied in the USA Today piece! as in "you people, who are wounded in a war we sent you to fight, and your families are having problems with multiple deployments affecting your kids, are just costing us (the american people) too much money"... excuse me? When you send men and women to a war (one, t'other, or both back to back) someone will be injured, someone will come back with a wound of some kind, mental or physical or both. To then criticize that person for needing care? is reprehensible, in bad taste and simply wrong.
I know LAW; indeed I know only too well. Keep the faith! : )
Junior enlisted personnel have no business getting married while in service nor should married enlisted personnel be recruited. Most of these young people may have the physical maturity to be in the military but lack the emotional maturity to manage both a demanding military service and volatile family issues. Financial pressures, childcare issues, extended deployments plus a host of other issues are a distraction for these young members of the armed forces and end up causing disciplinary and morale problems which senior enlisted and officers must manage. One way to correct this problem is doing away with a housing allowance for young EM’s and requiring them to live in barracks on base. If they are successful in the military as they gain rank and maturity then housing options and marriage may be permitted.
I strongly disagree with your post on a number of levels. #1 - Neither you nor the military get to determine whether a member gets to have a family and the timeline that member chooses to have the family in. This is not a restriction you would put on any normal 18 year old who "lack(s) the emotional maturity to manage ... finanical pressures, childcare issues". I will grant that civilians do not deal with deployments, but many in high stress occupations (firefighters, paramedics) face "volatile family issues" daily. The young in our society as a whole probably cannot emotionally mange a family, but they do so. How DARE you state that they ought not be allowed to have someone to come home to. That only those of higher ranks be allowed to have a wife and children... the kind of family comfort that, for many memebers, pulls them through their day (especially when they are deployed).
#2 - I know MANY officers who are not emotionally able to have a family... better yet, I know many officers who can barely manage their jobs. It still irritates me when people think that the enlisted are simply a group of mindless worker bees. The military has few restrictions on what degree is required to be commissioned. I know officers who have a degree as relevent as underwater basket weaving. Remember that a degree does not equal intelligence or maturity. It equals someone with enough money to attend college who was able to get at least a C in all classes. Remember that the absence of a degree does not mean the person is an idiot.
I assume from your post that you are or were a senior enlisted (in which case you were also a lower enlisted) or an officer. While your statement might be true of some, it is not true of all and having this restriction would severely decrease the force that protects you today. Correct the problem by allowing ALL members to seek the psychological help they need WITHOUT the stigma that follows it.
Are you serious? now let's think about this. Jr enlisted man/woman - you can be trained to operate millions of dollars worth of equipment, you can be told to go kill someone, and to protect everyone else in the country, allowing them to cheerfully go about their business of marriage, procreation, adultery, mayhem and foolishness. BUT you can't do ANY of the above. No, you must go live in a barracks, with little or no privacy even during your off hours. YOU will be treated in the same fashion as a prisoner, told where to go, what to eat, when to eat it.. But Oh " Thanks for your service". Now, Jr Officer man/woman - although you spent 4 years (or more) of your recent past drinking, carousing, taking part in various fraternity/sorority malarkey and scraping a C average out of your classes, you are now an "officer and gentleman/woman". Because you have put on that rank, you are suddenly imbued with boatloads of common sense, have become wise beyond your years and can manage command and family life - therefore you may go forth, marry and procreate.
Please - get real here. Young and dumb is NOT the enlisted credo, nor is it unknown in the officer ranks. You owe an apology to the Jr. Enlisted for this.
Have you ever been in the Army?
Just curious. Because conning guys into living in the barracks and having the Army intrude even more into their already limited private lives would be catastrophic for morale and welfare of units. Especially ones that deploy once every 12 months, like they have been lately.
Its a shame this was posted as an actual suggestion, because I think it is a serious issue, and all it did was invoke a series of responses that were purely defensive in nature and totally destroyed the chances of any enlightened discussion. I'm not in ANY way defending the suggestion to bar young soldiers from getting married, but to say that the youngest soldiers don't have a disproportionate number of personal and marital problems is just not accurate. I was just talking to my 1SG the other day about how getting a new crop of young guys is always tough, because its their first time on their own and they tend to try and do everything they possibly can with their newfound freedom. This includes getting married at a young (and unprepared) age. True, there are officers that suck. But, like it or not, that 4 years of living away from home to earn their degree, whether it be in Underwater Basket Weaving or Mechanical Engineering gave them the opportunity to learn how to pay bills, have relationships, etc... an experience most of the younger junior guys don't get. Officers and senior NCOs have their share of problems, many of which are habitual in their own ranks. But I don't think its unfair to say that they are different problems than guys E4 and below commonly face.
Am I agreeing with the original poster? Hell no. What I am saying, though, is not to get overly defensive and pretend that certain problems don't exist. Family issues, though more common with younger soldiers, are undoubtedly a problem Army-wide, and warrant serious discussion with realistic suggestions.
It is all a question of compensation
In a "volunteer" military (really a military which uses the job market like every other industry to obtain employees) compensation is compensation whether it comes in terms of health care, money, or prohibitions on marriage (which would probably be negative compensation). Having service members pay out of pocket for health care would simply reduce their total compensation, which may or may not (depending on the job market factors) reduce the number/quality of recruits, or require a corresponding increase in salary. Same with prohibiting marriage. If you prohibited marriage you would have to provide some corresponding benefit that job-seekers would consider of equal value in order to get the same workers.
And if you try to claim that the military job market is different from the normal job market because people value patriotism and service (and this is the only possible argument for prohibiting marriage) then shame on you for taking advantage of the noble instincts of the best young Americans and attempting to short them the legitimate compensation that they could obtain for their skills on the open market.
Or we could just have a draft with no deferments, pay draftees a pittance, prohibit marriage and sleep well at night knowing that we all share the sacrifice we are currently trying to tie a dollar-value to.
Our middle teen daughter is going to therapy sessions for depression/stress induced illness. Started out once a week, backed off a wee bit after things turned around. Too often these things are viewed as frivolous Kumbaya sessions. It has been a tremendous benefit for us. Claiming or suggesting that mil families are abusing taxpayer funds to use benefits given is indeed...rich. My guess is the vast majority of anyone suggesting such things are right-leaning tax obsessed types that were/are war cheerleaders. I got news for them, such 'abuses' will continue for decades.
Here is another thing that I think the general public does not get...it's the seperation.
Without a doubt, families with someone in combat have a level of stress I cannot even comprehend. But, even if the deployed person is "in the rear, with the gear", the fact is, they are gone. Those little conversations are missed. Conversations that may seem innocuous at the time, but over time, help to guide a teen or tween. Maybe just small encouragments in sports, or ideas on college, or a "lay down the law" talk on academics are just lost. Yes, I do all I can. We do have the BIG talks. But I cannot possibly make up for those day-to-day chats.
I am trying not to whine too much...we made our decisions, proud of them. Parades are nice, but a little understanding would be far better.
Seriously, since when have promises been kept?
I'm an army brat. I love the military. I work every day with retired military (about 50 in my building) who have served 20 to 30 year careers. Without fail, on a weekly basis, do you know the topic that comes up? Broken promises made to them when they enlisted. Without fail this topic comes up! If it were just an odd conversation by a single person once a year or so, I could dismiss it.
Folks, let's wake up and not kid ourselves regarding how this story ends. The story has had the same ending since the colonial times. It goes all the way back to our own troops at war with our own troops! Don't believe me? MacArthur and Patton led US troops against US troops in DC! Sounds like a science fiction movie doesn't it? Oh, how about this? The US Continental army was disbanded without pay. Two years later troops surrounded Congress demanding pay and Congress fled to Princeton. Guess who came in to fight against the US troops?
In conclusion, let me summarize by saying simply that Gov't/Military promises have always been broken. It there is one thing you can count on, it is that a promise will be broken. Just think back to the promises that the recruiter made. If ever there were an inauspicious start to an adventure, that would have to be it.
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE