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.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
