Defense At A Price AUTHOR Major Carl K. Hergesell, USAF CSC 1991 SUBJECT AREA - Warfighting EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE. DEFENSE AT A PRICE I. Purpose. To look at the change; within the military and how those changes are affecting a valuable resource--our children. II. Thesis: America's military involveent in the war with Iraq has brought up the issue of single parent; and dual-service couples in the military and what affects their deployments are causing for their children who are left behind. III.Overview: Since the advent of the all-volunteer force in 1973, the United State; military establishment has gone through many changes. The most prevalent change has been the significant increase of women within the military. With the rise in the number of women has been a correlating rise in single parents and dual-service couples with children. Until America's involvement in Southwest Asia the only concern within the military that they haue encountered is trying to stay together for Permanent Change of Station assignments. This howeuer changed with Southwest Asia when the parents, both single and dual-service couples, were faced with the decision of their children during their absence. These deployments have caused concern with politicians, military leaders, civilians and the parents themselves. IV.Conclusion: How is America going to respond to this issue? Will the leaders realize that the real losers in this issue are the children themselves? V. Recommendation: It is imperative that something is done to correct this situation before America's next military involvement. The next time the duration of the crisis may be longer and result in a significant number of casualties which will orphan thousands of children. DEFENSE AT A PRICE OUTLINE Thesis: America's military involvement in the war with Iraq has brought up the issue of single parents and dual-service couples in the military and what affect their deployments are causing for the children that are left behind. Because of this dilemma, should the United States ignore the issue of how deployments affect children altogether, should the military have such a large number of single and dual-service couples, and finally should the Defense Department make exemptions for those parents in order to allow them to continue to have a military career? I. All-volunteer force A. Increase of women in the military B. Changing roles for the women II. Single parents and dual-service couples A. Assignment problems B. Problems encountered with Reserve call-up III. Family Care plan A. Problems with the plan B. Reactions to military deployments IV. The dilemma A. Political recommendations B. Civilian recommendations V. Reflections A. Exemptions, is it the way to go? B. Alternatives, what's fair? DEFENSE AT A PRICE by Major Hergesell, USAF, CG-8 Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and President Bush' subsequent ordering of troops to Saudi Arabia caused the United States to face its greatest military challenge since the Vietnam War. Not only was the United States military facing what appeared to be a very formidable foe, it was preparing for combat with an all-volunteer military. Since the abolishment of the draft in 1973 the composition of the military has drastically changed: Twenty-five years ago females made up only 1.2 percent of the military personnel and served mostly in traditional fields like nursing and administration. Today, 230,000 women on actiue-duty make up 11 percent of all American military personnel. (2:93) Reflecting social trends, the volunteer force also represents a large number of dual military couples and single parent members--many responsible for young children. These factors resulted in an unforeseen problem with the deployment of over 500,000 American troops to Saudi Arabia. Not only did America find itself confronting the Iraqi military, but it gradually became aware of an unprecedented aspect of our volunteer forces--mothers and fathers leaving their children to go on a lengthy deployment. This has brought up the issue of single parents and dual-seruice couples in the military; first, should we ignore the issue of how deployments affect children altogether; or, should the military exempt single and dual- service couples who are the children's primary care givers and finally, should the Defense Department make exemptions for those parents in order to allow them to continue to have a military career? The birth of the all-volunteer force in 1973 brought about many of the problems that the military is faced with today. With the shrinking male population the military recruiters turned toward the, as yet untapped, reservoir of the female population. This combined with the dwindling number of 18--22 year old male recruits paved the way for an increase in military women. In addition, the military academies opened their enrollment to women with the class' of 1980. All of these changes have brought about what is now the highest percentage (11 percent) of women on active-duty of any armed force in the world." (1:1) Today, women are found in just about every military specialty, from pilots of transports, to members of infantry company's. Politically powerful women, such as Democrat Pat Schroeder-Colorado, a member of the House armed Services Committee, has championed the cause for women by helping to lift the restriction; that the military had imposed. In retrospect, were our military leaders or Congress concerned with the ultimate reality of our military forces being involved in a war? The all-volunteer military drew many young women and men with the lure of a college education and an equal opportunity for advancement. It has created the illusion ," be all you can be, it's not ju;t a job--it's an adventure." Nowhere do they say that the military is not just a job, it's a commitment, a commitment that you could die for--a commitment that could abruptly leave your children with a distant relative or friend. Not only does the United States military have the highest percentage of women on active-duty of any armed service in the world, it also expects the women to perform next to their male counterpart even if it is in a hostile environment. With today's sophisticated weaponry, there is no longer a front and rear area of a battlefield. Every man and woman who is deployed into the theater of operations is at the mercy of the enemy. They are all in harms way. Not even Israel, which has to maintain a large standing military and a strong reserve force, asks so much of their women: The Israeli army drafts women but exempts them from marriage, motherhood, religion, etc.. Israeli military women are generally clerks, nurses, teachers, secretaries, and social workers. By law, they are evacuated from the front during hostilities. In Iraq, women serve in the civil defense force but not in the army. (12:1) Society and the women's movement have drastically changed the makeup of the job force in America. These changes are reflected in the jobs that women have in today's military. What was once viewed as a mans' occupation, is now viewed as an increased opportunity for women. Although many women and men who entered the military were not married they subsequently married and often had children. However, the complication arises from the number of military members who marry other military members. The situation of one military member being married to another is one in which the military personnel services have been trying to deal, as humanely as possible, for many years. If at all possible permanent changes of station (PCS) were handled in such a way that family unity was maintained. However, the needs of the military must always come before personal needs. In as such, in 1988, General Larry Welch, then Air Force Chief of Staff, summed up the situation in a letter that he sent to every air force officer. In the letter he addressed the issue of officers complaining about not having volunteered for assignments they had received. His reply was that the only volunteering counted was the one in which they took their oath of commission. Furthermore, he stated that the professional officer is vulnerable for reassignment to anyplace, at anytime, based on the needs of the Air Force.(14:1) The problem of PCS moves is not confined solely to dual military couples but it is an issue in single parent families as well: The total United States military now stands at 2.1 million. Of that total there are 46,686 dual military couple; with children plus an additional 65,962 unmarried active- duty members with custody of their dependent children. (6:3) The problem of PCS moves, unaccompanied remote assignments, and military conflicts creates an unprecedented and difficult situation--not only for the military member and the personnel system, but for the unknown number of children whose lives are disrupted. Of all the factors considered, PCS, deployments, and remote assignments, how many dual military couples and single military parents gave a fleeting thought to the chance that they may be sent off to war? For that matter, did Congress consider the moral and social consequences of a military so drastically altered over the last two decades? Further, did the American public? If not, during the fall of 1990, as troops, both active and reserve, deployed to Saudi Arabia, a realization abruptly dawned that the oath of service symbolized much more than a steady job and security. With the deployment of troops, Operation Desert Shield came to life. However with this deployment came an unprecedented barrage of television and news coverage. America watched as this event brought forth an unforeseen circumstance of our relatively newly evolved military social and gender structure. The ubiquitous news specials showed children crying tearfully as they said goodbye to Dad while Mom had already deployed to Saudi Arabia two weeks before. Local and national newspapers reported on the number of single parents who had to leave their children with a relative or a friend in order to proceed on their deployment. This, in turned, caused an unforeseen financial strain on the friends and relatives who agreed to care for these children. Some friends and relatives even quit their jobs and moved to where the children lived. Statistics reflect that "16,337 single parents have been deployed in Operation Desert Storm and 1,231 military couples with children." (8:1) Congressional and military leaders realized the Iraqi military was one of the largest militarys in the world. Many of the Iraqi troops were combat veterans having just concluded an eight year war with Iran. Because of the size and experience of the Iraqi military, the American military and political leaders felt that, in order to present Iraq with a substantial military threat, a great number of reserve forces throughout the United States would be called to active-duty. Once activated, the reserve forces were deployed along with active-duty forces to Saudi Arabia. Operation Desert Storm became a catapult for one of the largest deployments of reservists in over 40 years. Not since the "Korean war have reservists been called up in such large numbers." (11:44) According to Pentagon officials;: they concede they were unsure how many children would be left without a parent when they called up reservist;, though they say they knew how many active-duty families would be affected (17,568). However, among all reservists the numbers of single parents with dependent children (59,000) and military couples with dependent children (2,000) are high enough to suggest that children's well-being is something reservists have had to grapple with as well. (11:43) Reflecting this change, "44 reservists called to active-duty for Operation Desert Shield received discharges because of problems with establishing suitable child care." (6:3) The military services had earlier devised a system by which the single parent and the dual military couple designate a primary care giver in case of deployments. This plan is called the Family Care plan. The Family Care Plan applies to both active-duty and reservists. The plan calls for the unmarried military parent and the dual-service couple to identify someone either family or friend to care for the children: If the military determines that no suitable guardian is available and accepts a service members appeal for hardship, it can discharge the parent or place him or her at a job where they can care for their children. (8:1) For the active-duty member it could place him or her at a disadvantage due to the fact that they are no longer world wide assignable. This could cause them to be passed over for positions of increased responsibility which definitely would be a hindrance for the career officer and could cause a delay in the promotion of senior non-commissioned officers. Furthermore, it puts an undue burden on the other officer and enlisted corps members because they would have to pick up the burden from parents who received exemptions. Military members eligible for exemptions would not carry the shared responsibilities and burdens of remote assignments and deployments to combat zones. This obviously would cause significant problems in morale due to the resentment of what could be looked upon as favoritism. The military services found itself in a predicament of, while maintaining a strong military force, having to deal with the ever increasing number of children who would be misplaced in the absence of a military member. While military planners remained undecided, many men and women were suddenly presented with making a choice between their children and their professions: Specialist 4, Robin Williams, "I'm a woman and a mother before I'm a soldier. Out here I think more about my family than about my job, and Yes, that could affect my performance if things got intense here." (12:1) Specialist Williams made the point that is heard time and time again-- if she is thinking more about what she left behind than what is expected of her during a deployment, she could cause harm to herself and endanger the lives of those around her: Discharged Lori Moore of Fort Benning Georgia saw it that way: I'm a soldier, I was ready to go. But I produced these kids and I need to take responsibility for them. I'm afraid that the children are the uns;ung victims of Operation Desert Storm. (12:1) In trying to address this issue early on, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney did not offer up any possible solutions: Nobody's serving in the military today who did not ask to serve. And the only way to avoid the kind of situation where you have two parents with dependents serving is to prohibit people from serving if they get married. If you have a man and women both serving, meet in the service, marry, have a family, why should one of them be kicked out? (9:10) This attitude is reflective of the opinions held by many civilians and military members. However what they are not asking themselves is how does the loss of the primary care giver affect the children who are left behind--therefore how will society be effected in the possible event of war? Although this is not just a women's issue, conservative and liberal women's groups are speaking out on this subject. The Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America, a conservative women's group, have taken a rather unique approach to the issue, "they argue that mothers should be exempt from duty in the military and that the military should treat them just like men with disabilities." (9:10) Exempting women from military ;ervice by comparing them to men with disabilities is rather extreme. However, it does make a point in showing how some member; of our society view women in the role of the primary care giver. Noted Pediatrician T. Berry Brazelton said that: Sending mothers away from their children is terrible, reprehensible, and not necessary... A child whose parents leave has two resources. Either to mourn and turn inward or to say, I'm bad, why did my mommy leave me? Or, is my mommy bad because she left me? I can't imagine a country doing that to its children. (12:1) For the child whose parent or parents are sent away on a deployment many different reactions may occur. Dr. Brazelton noted a few possible reactions but the question remains whether all children are susceptible to problems or does this problem just pertain to a few? " Especially susceptible to emotional damage are children 1 through 6 years old. These children will be at a much higher risk for clinical depression, substance abuse, and ruptured family life." (12:1) Is the military or society willing to risk the emotional well being of so many of our children? No one, even now, is sure just how many children have been affected by the loss of one or both of their parents to Operation Desert Storm. It will take a number of years for all of the potential problems to surface before we know the extent of the problem. Since the military has been presented with this issue it has attempted to keep any changes from occurring to the deployment system until after the troops have returned home. Both Secretary Cheney and General Powell emphasized in a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, Democrat-Maine. In that letter they argued: That redeploying single parents and military couples would weaken our combat capability by removing key personnel... and by undermining our unit cohesion and esprit de corps. It would also break faith with our single parents and military couples, and with their comrades who depend on them everyday. (12:1) Currently, of the four major military services, the Navy is the only one with a clear-cut policy on the simultaneous deployment of dual-service couples with children; "it prohibits deploying both a husband and wife unless the couple requests the deployments in writing." (6:3) As previously stated, dual-service couples with children presently stands at " 46,688 couples within all the services. This number pales in comparison to the 65,982 unmarried active-duty members with custody of their children." (6:3) The military is not only feeling pressure from some segments of the public to make changes in their deployment of single parents and dual-service couples with children, but political pressure is also being applied. As in the case of America's involvement in Southwest Asia, numerous politicians were calling for America to withdraw its troops prior to any hostilities. Once it was determined through a congressional vote to support President Bush and the United Nations resolutions, the politicians turned their attention to issues concerning the imminent conflict. Several were quick to voice their opinions and attempt to pass through Congress limits on how the military services can utilize their single parents and dual-service couples: Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat-Wisconsin, and Representative Jill Long, Democrat-Indiana, introduced bills in both the Senate and the house to give single parents and dual-service couples the right to turn down assignments to combat zones and peacetime assignments to remote areas where family support facilities are inadequate. (6:3) This recommendation would more than likely have negative response from other military members who would not fall under this type of favoritism. In fact the Pentagon was quick to respond by saying that, "if Congressional proposals passed, 5 percent of the active-duty military would become ineligible for deployment to hostile fire or imminent danger areas." (6:3) In addition, Senator John Heinz, Republican-Pennsylvania, commented on what must have been going through every parents' mind who left children behind to be cared for by someone other than their parent. He stated "it is not the parents we should help, but their children." (3:1) The United States military services are at a cross-roads. They achieved unquestionable success by smashing the Iraqi army but now must face the challenge of finding a solution to the military families' problems. Will anything come of this issue when Congress is facing drastic military cuts in both spending and personnel strength between now and 1995? To date the only action that has been taken is a regulation that passed through the House subcommittee on Military Personnel and Compensation: The House regulation called for the exemption for single parents and military couples with children less than 6 months old from future deployments and unaccompanied tours. The pending exemption, which would apply to both active-duty members and reservists, would be at the parents option. (11:47) The House proposal however does not address "those children between the ages of 1 and 6 who are especially susceptible to emotional damage if their primary care giver is sent on a deployment." (11:46) This proposal by the House is good only until the child is 6 months old and at that time the parent once again becomes available for world-wide assignments. What are the answers? Should we ignore the issues of children altogether? Should women or men who are single parents be allowed to stay in the military? What about dual-service couples with children--should one of them be forced out of the military? Should the military have such a high number of single and dual service members who are the primary care givers? Who is to say which member remains and which is forced to separate? Should the Defense Department make exemptions in order to allow them to continue to have a military career? Is the military hoping that the force draw-down will take care of this problem? Or are they going to tackle this problem head on. So, when the next military crisis comes it will not be the military child that becomes another of the casualties of war. Whatever the answer is, the military services are faced with the formidable task of protecting our future--our children. Will the rules and regulations that govern their lives be changed amidst an attitude of apathy and, in lieu of, what may be perceived as social injustice? Whatever the outcome, it is they who stand to win or lose. BIBLI0GRAPHY 1. Foote, Evelyn, "War is no time to make changes," The Washinoton Post,February 17, 1991, Section B.,p.1. 2. Gross, Andres. "Women under fire." Ladies Home Jounrnal, 5(December 1990),93-97. 3. Heinz, John, "Accomadations must be made," The Washinoton Post, February 17, 1991, Section B.,p.1. 4. Jehn Christopher, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and Personnel. Public Broadcasting System, Channel 26, Washington, April 4, 1991. 5. Maze, Rick, "DOD caught in middle on deploying new moms," Air Force Times, April 1, 1991,p.6. 6. Maze, Rick, "Pentagon balks at change in parent assingment policy," Navy Times, February 25, 1991,p.3. 7. Moore, Martha, "Bills focus on parents in military," USA Today, February 22, 1991, Section A.,p.2. 8. Priest, Dana, "17,500 Families divided," The Washington Post, February 15, 1991, Section A.,p.1. 9. Priest, Dana, "Parent debate goes beyond sex of (GI," The Washington Post, February 19, 1991, Section A.,p.10. 1O.Sanders, Alain, "When Dad and Mom go to war." Time, 16 February 1991,p.69. 11.Slavin, Peter, "Who's minding the kids?" Army Times, March 18, 1991,pp.43-47. 12.Smith, Terry, "Mothers at war," The Washington Post, February 10, 1991, Section C.,p.1. 13.Watson, Tom, "Children have had to grow up, deal with the situation," USA Today, February 22, 1991, Section A.,p.2. 14.Welch, Larry General, Air Force Chief of Staff, Washington D.C.. Letter about Officer Professional Development, August 1988. 15.Young, Kathleen, "Parents Key to helping kids during Middle East crisis," Quantico Sentry, February 15, 1991, Section B.,p.4.
