If the Army Had Wanted You to Have a Family, it Would Have Issued You One, Soldier!

That's the kind of thing our hard-nosed superiors used to say to us when we bitched about how duty interfered with our lives (took me twice as long to get a BA, what with all the traveling). Some things cross a line though: military motherhood in a time of war without end might just be one of them. It was one thing, having to put my BA (and MA) on hold. I once had eight days to pack up my entire life in Maryland and report to Texas. Eight days, after waiting nearly a year for those orders. But, I was single, no kids. I managed. It would have been quite something else to wave bye bye to my newborn, as it turns out so many military moms are having to. Things just get worse and worse from our troops and our war.

Time away from family is the top reason given for troops not re-upping, a problem which affects the mothers of infants in a special way. The Army only gives new mothers six weeks of maternity leave and a four month delay in deployments. Unsurprisingly, women's willingness to serve in the Army has dropped faster even than the men's; from 10% to 4% according to the Army's youth surveys. Washington Post: "Other services grant longer exemptions, and all have generally shorter deployments: The Navy exemption is 12 months, and the Marine Corps's is six months, and deployments average seven months for both. The Air Force has a four-month exemption, but its deployments average only four to six months." Nearly 40% of women on active duty have children

You have to read the Post piece to make yourself dizzy getting behind the gestational math couples have to master to time getting pregnant at exactly the right moment between/during or after deployments. In the case of dual career military couples, infants end up spending the first year or so of their lives with grandparents or other more attenuated guardians. There went breastfeeding.

The military life isn't for everyone, but this is the kind of thing that the Pentagon brass had better do some serious thinking about. Potential recruits, and the mid-career types we're losing in droves, certainly are.

Comments

No surprises here. Family always ranks far behind mission. We now have the worst of all conditions: a small Army and a ton of missions. For the big Army, "taking care of families" is a nice slogan and just another block to be checked on senior officers' (uniformed, civilian SES or political appointee) evaluation reports. As far as retaining mid-level personnel, again, not a show-stopper for the big Army since they can always lower standards and promote more people (and of course recruit more sub-par folks to backfill). I left active duty two weeks after getting married to avoid the personnel-shuffle madness. When the system finally collapses, here comes the draft: for men and women.

Posted by: Steve Bennett on 02/25/08 at 6:45 AM Respond

Sorry , but families interfere with the mission, period! Someone under the age of 22 and on their first tour of duty should not be allowed to marry! Marriage costs time and money, both of which are in short supply in today's military! How many of these people would be married at this young age if they were not in the military! Speaking of cost, think how much money the military would save if they did not have to supply benifits for spouses ( male and female) as well as dependents, so based upon this logic, sorry but families cost to much money... and interfere with training! I know from personnal experience, we always had to go out of the way for " brown baggers" ( married personal in the Marine Corps) and I personally got tired of getting shafted so they could go home!

Posted by: chris morgan on 02/25/08 at 11:52 AM Respond

I was a National Guard officer deployed in 2005-2006. I knew what I got myself into, but my family came along after. The Guard's family support system was a total failure for me.

Not that I was ever planning on going back to Iraq, but it sure made the decision to get out of the Guard easier.

The military can be a wonderful opportunity to contribute to your responsibilities as a citizen. But, since we can't seem to elect responsible leaders (those who understand the sacrifice of service and would have been willing to be called themselves) I am not recommending military service.

Further, I'm just about sick of bumper-sticker patriotism.

I understand mission first, family second. However, without a draft, or our fellow citizen's commitment to national service, we'll never have a military without a significant married population. Heck, it's not a shabby job for a young person without skills. However, you do risk getting killed for other people's hubris.

Sorry about the rant.

Vote for adult leaders in 2008.

Posted by: Dave on 02/25/08 at 12:29 PM Respond

Would somebody please tell Chris that if the Army kicked out every soldier with a family, they'd have a worse personel problem than they do already? Single people just aren't enlisting.
It's easy to support a war when there's no draft.

And watch the exclamation points.

Posted by: joemog on 02/25/08 at 1:24 PM Respond

It is grossly unfair, but any woman who is considering going into the army - or thinking about a serious career, will have to have a serious think. Does she have a career, or does she have children?

Posted by: bab5nutz on 02/25/08 at 4:01 PM Respond

No mission to difficult.
no sacrifice to great.

Posted by: Dr.Q on 02/26/08 at 3:25 AM Respond