As Wars Lengthen, Toll on Military Families Mounts

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Anyone want to try and put a dollar amount on this, another cost of the Iraq invasion and occupation?

--------------------------------------------------------------
As wars lengthen, toll on military families mounts (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080719/ap_on_re_us/military_scarred_families_2)
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Sat Jul 19, 6:34 PM ET

FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. - Far from the combat zones, the strains and separations of no-end-in-sight wars are taking an ever-growing toll on military families despite the armed services' earnest efforts to help.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080720/capt.3ce2b41b77f7492596a3b332f3f04a88.military_sca rred_families_ny346.jpg?x=180&y=177&q=85&sig=GI0GYZ2.oCrW6GrsFFi38g--
AP Photo: Maj. Mike Oeschger gives his wife Pam a kiss during an interview at Fort Campbell,...

Divorce lawyers see it in the breakup of youthful marriages as long, multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan fuel alienation and mistrust. Domestic violence experts see it in the scuffles that often precede a soldier's departure or sour a briefly joyous homecoming.

Teresa Moss, a counselor at Fort Campbell's Lincoln Elementary School, hears it in the voices of deployed soldiers' children as they meet in groups to share accounts of nightmares, bedwetting and heartache.

"They listen to each other. They hear that they aren't the only ones not able to sleep, having their teachers yell at them," Moss said.

Even for Army spouses with solid marriages, the repeated separations are an ordeal.

"Three deployments in, I still have days when I want to hide under the bed and cry," said Jessica Leonard, who is raising two small children and teaching a "family team building" class to other wives at Fort Campbell. Her husband, Capt. Lance Leonard, is in Iraq.

Those classes are among numerous initiatives to support war-strained families. Yet military officials acknowledge that the vast needs outweigh available resources, and critics complain of persistent shortcomings — a dearth of updated data on domestic violence, short shrift for families of National Guard and Reserve members, inadequate support for spouses and children of wounded and traumatized soldiers.

If the burden sounds heavier than what families bore in the longest wars of the 20th century — World War II and Vietnam — that's because it is, at least in some ways. What makes today's wars distinctive is the deployment pattern — two, three, sometimes four overseas stints of 12 or 15 months. In the past, that kind of schedule was virtually unheard of.

"Its hard to go away, it's hard to come back, and go away and come back again," said Dr. David Benedek, a leading Army psychiatrist. "That is happening on a larger scale than in our previous military endeavors. They're just getting their feet wet with some sort of sense of normalcy, and then they have to go again."

Almost in one breath, military officials praise the resiliency that enables most families to endure and acknowledge candidly that the wars expose them to unprecedented stresses and the risk of long-lasting scars.

"There's nothing that has prepared many of our families for the length of these deployments," said Rene Robichaux, social work programs manager for the U.S. Army Medical Command. "It's hard to communicate to a family member how stressful the environment is, not just the risk of injury or death, but the austere circumstances, the climate, the living conditions."

An array of studies by the Army and outside researchers say that marital strains, risk of child maltreatment and other problems harmful to families worsen as soldiers serve multiple combat tours.

For example, a Pentagon-funded study last year concluded that children in some Army families were markedly more vulnerable to abuse and neglect by their mothers when their fathers were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Iraq, the latest survey by Army mental health experts showed that more than 15 percent of married soldiers deployed there were planning a divorce, with the rates for soldiers at the late stages of deployment triple those of recent arrivals.

For the Army, especially, the challenges are staggering as it furnishes the bulk of combat forces. As of last year, more than 55 percent of its soldiers were married, a far higher rate than during the Vietnam war. The nearly 513,000 soldiers on active duty collectively had more than 493,000 children.\
CONT.

[TailgateNut]

Ask Cutt, he'll tell you they should have know this would happen when they decided to sign on the dotted line.
Nothing to see here.

[cutthemdown]

Ask Cutt, he'll tell you they should have know this would happen when they decided to sign on the dotted line.
Nothing to see here.

not true I feel bad for them. Hopefully it will be over soon. Are you sure it was me that talked about the troops like that? I don't think I ever said I don't feel bad for them. In fact I do things to try and help besides sit around and bitch and cry like you do.

I pull to win the war not for war to be commonplace.

[That One Guy]

It is sad. Unfortunately there is no answer. The choice comes down to cut your career and run from, in some cases, 10+ years of service you've already given or suck it up. For those struggling with the lifestyle, most aren't remaining if they're in the 5-8 years of service window. They don't have enough invested. It's those in the 10-13 years who must choose between their family and their retirement and who it is the hardest for.

It terrifies me what the army of tomorrow will look like when the soldiers of yesterday are retired and only those who chose to stay during the constant deployment cycles are left to run things. It is that hollow army we've always heard about, I think it could definitely be coming.

[ant1999e]

It is sad. Unfortunately there is no answer. The choice comes down to cut your career and run from, in some cases, 10+ years of service you've already given or suck it up. For those struggling with the lifestyle, most aren't remaining if they're in the 5-8 years of service window. They don't have enough invested. It's those in the 10-13 years who must choose between their family and their retirement and who it is the hardest for.
It terrifies me what the army of tomorrow will look like when the soldiers of yesterday are retired and only those who chose to stay during the constant deployment cycles are left to run things. It is that hollow army we've always heard about, I think it could definitely be coming.

I have seven years left. I'll deal with any stop loss, deployment,remote or whatever else gets thrown at me. I'm proud of the career I've chosen. I know what I've signed up for and won't blame my recruiter. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to serve my country.

[TailgateNut]

I have seven years left. I'll deal with any stop loss, deployment,remote or whatever else gets thrown at me. I'm proud of the career I've chosen. I know what I've signed up for and won't blame my recruiter. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to serve my country.



Aren't you in the Air Farce. Don't see to much "action" there, so this topic doesn't really apply. This is something which generally affects the Marines and the Army, not you cushy fly-boys. ;)

[Earendil]

It never ceases to amaze me how those who polish their crosses with the bloody flags in which they drape themselves can casually turn their backs on disabled servicemen and women and their families any time that service actually costs anything. Y'know, heaven forbid those who send troops into combat should sacrifice a single penny for people who risk their lives for America. It's right up there with Jean Schmidt (who's never worn anything but a power suit) calling a Vietnam Vet a coward (she had to BEG the House to strike her remarks, because House rules prohibit personal attacks from the floor against members) or career civilian Pete Roskum accusing Tammy Duckworth of wanting to "cut and run" (after losing both legs when her Blackhawk was shot down over Iraq in '04 I'm sure she'd be thrilled to just RUN again.... )

Loving American means more than using, abusing and throwing her away, folks. I have nothing but the highest regard and no little wonder for people who VOLUNTEER to risk their lives for us, knowing they have no control over where their sent. But that only deepens my disgust with those who callously use them as political pawns to be sacrificed whenever expedient. Generals who let wounded soldiers live with rats and roaches because "I don't do barracks inspections" quadriplegics coming home to have family start a freakin' CHARITY drive for the medical care their own government denies. To say "they knew the risks to their families when they signed up to be indefinitely stop lossed" is beneath contempt.

Support the troops, or support Bush, but you can't do both. Quote Burke at ME, will ya; I see your Burke and raise you Lord Acton: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Rohirrim]

BTW, nice choice of name, Earendil. :thumbsup:

[Earendil]

BTW, nice choice of name, Earendil. :thumbsup:
Heh, thought you'd like that; beats my old one all to hell. Feel free to jump into my impromptu threadjack of BlondeBroncoGirls intro thread; she's been beat on enough, whoever she is or isn't, and I'm interested in impressions from anyone who's read The Children of Hurin. Personally, if I could've assembled the best of the Silm, UT and LT2 that would have been the result. I have no complaints, and that's saying something, especially when it comes to the Professors story written by someone else (even Chris.) It's a tale with a special place in my heart though, even if it contains elements I've put behind me forever. I think, all things considered, the fate of Turins nephew is a higher and happier aspiration than the one he found/made.

[kappys]

It is sad. Unfortunately there is no answer. The choice comes down to cut your career and run from, in some cases, 10+ years of service you've already given or suck it up. For those struggling with the lifestyle, most aren't remaining if they're in the 5-8 years of service window. They don't have enough invested. It's those in the 10-13 years who must choose between their family and their retirement and who it is the hardest for.

It terrifies me what the army of tomorrow will look like when the soldiers of yesterday are retired and only those who chose to stay during the constant deployment cycles are left to run things. It is that hollow army we've always heard about, I think it could definitely be coming.

That's why companies like Blackwater and other mercenary groups are being increasingly employed by the government; and if wars like this continue will continue to be used. Its the only option out there. The army isn't able to recruit troops, many older vets are quitting, and a draft would result in a complete disaster. After the Vietnam experience instituting a military draft to run an imperialistic war seems highly unlikely.

[That One Guy]

Blackwater actually got thrown out of Iraq a year or two ago after they killed a group of people but the Iraqis couldn't prosecute them and Americans wouldn't. Now only American troops can carry weapons, no employment of civilians in a capacity of force, etc. I don't recall the issue that brought blackwater down but it was fairly well publicized. Anyone got the actual info on this? I'm hazy on the details

In the end, there's just too much wrong with the situation over there. You think back to the way wars were once fought, you would deploy for a few years, however long it was, and that was your life. You didn't go in thinking "364 more days" and constantly watching the clock. You can't embrace the deployment as your life because A. the mission will not be complete when you're ready to leave and B. you're so close to your family through venues like constant phone and internet access yet so far away when it comes to the basic human needs like companionship. You're just stuck in middle ground somewhere where you spend your whole year waiting to come home and it wears on you. It kills morale which then ruins everything else. I spent my year working 14 hour days, sleeping about 8, and trying to catch my wife online where due to lack of much to talk about, conversations generally centered around "I can't wait to get home". That basically ate up my time and healthy activities were basically non-existant. Now, noone who leaves their family behind is going to pass on an opportunity to talk to them and try to feel as close as possible but you're two worlds apart and trying to bridge the gap. It can't be done. The article was right, this is all unprecedented and noone really knows what to do. Then you add in those who also have to deal with the realities of death for the first time and how that effects them. So many different factors that people just aren't conditioned to understand or be able to deal with. Noone knows the answer and short of freaking out or showing obvious mental illness, there's no way of knowing whether you're healthy in the mind or not upon your return. A deployment is guarranteed to change your life, there's no black and white though when it goes from merely being you change as a person to being you make an unhealthy change that you need help for. That's something I have wondered about often, everytime I have an unpleasant memory or recollection I start to wonder if it's PTSD. I'm now more paranoid of PTSD than anything else I think and it worries me. Do these people who suffer from severe PTSD know when they're about to snap, go crazy? Do I have a temper that I never knew about festering inside me that will one day come out that I wont know to expect? Was it there before and these are all just made up conditions in my mind generated by the fact that I hear about PTSD on a daily basis?

Everyone right now is just trying to do the best with the situation they can but without having legitimate goals over there, it weighs on the mind too much. It's not healthy at all and it can scramble the mind sometimes, but what can you do? All of this is only made worse by the political drama that goes on because as someone up above made the comment that you can either support Bush or the troops but not both... soldiers in their worst moments when life doesn't seem to be able to worsen, then they hear that and their mind wants to embrace it. They want to blame someone like Bush for their concerns and for putting them in that situation. It's just a mess right now and the longer it goes on, the more morale gets a chance to devolve. Most people go in excited and motivated to serve their country but when the media is singing this doubt into your ear at every possibility, it just makes the situation so much worse. It's just not good and the best you can probably do is detach from the situation but detaching from life for an entire year isn't healthy either, it can become habitual and you have THOSE problems to deal with. What do you do though?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That's why companies like Blackwater and other mercenary groups are being increasingly employed by the government; and if wars like this continue will continue to be used. Its the only option out there. The army isn't able to recruit troops, many older vets are quitting, and a draft would result in a complete disaster. After the Vietnam experience instituting a military draft to run an imperialistic war seems highly unlikely.Maybe starting wars isn't such a good thing to be doing in the first place.

Blackwater is about the worst thing we can be doing. Once you contract out war, all is lost.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Military families have little use for Bush, Iraq policy


Posted December 7th, 2007 at 10:05 am
(http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/?p=13839&akst_action=share-this)

Last week, at the debate for Republican presidential candidates, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) made the ridiculous claim that U.S. troops and their families are, by their very nature, conservative. “[M]ost Americans, most kids who leave that — that breakfast table and go and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family — most of them are conservatives.”

Even on its face, it was an absurd argument, but the evidence to disprove Hunter’s claim (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-militpoll7dec07,1,6889712.story?coll=la-headlines-nation) keeps piling up.Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war’s fifth year.
Specifically, nearly 60% of military families disapprove of the president’s performance and his handling of the war in Iraq. Among those families with members serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, six in 10 say the war has not been worth the cost. In both instances, the opinions of military families are in line with those of the U.S. civilian population.
Perhaps most importantly, a clear majority (58%) of these families “favor a withdrawal within the coming year or ‘right away.’”
I’m of course looking forward to congressional Republicans smearing these families as “cut and runners,” and Limbaugh blasting them for being “phony military families.”

It’s worth remembering that this is a trend that’s been ongoing for a while. Bush and the GOP assume the troops and their families are politically and ideologically in line behind them, but assumptions like these are mistaken. Remember this Military Times poll (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9481.html) from a year ago?
Moreover, there’s a partisan shift apparently underway. Brandon Friedman at Vote Vets noted today (http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=214), “Way back in the day, many of us voted for George W. Bush. Personally, I cast that fateful vote for him in 2000–when I was 22 years old, and just over a month away from being commissioned as an Army officer. I figured I was doing my duty. I thought that Republicans supported the military. But I didn’t make the same mistake in 2004. After one deployment to Afghanistan and another to Iraq, I’d finally learned my lesson.”
It’s a sentiment that’s catching on.When military families were asked which party could be trusted to do a better job of handling issues related to them, respondents divided almost evenly: 39% said Democrats and 35% chose Republicans. The general population feels similarly: 39% for Democrats and 31% for Republicans.
“The Democrats are not seen as the anti-soldier group anymore,” said Charles C. Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University.
Let’s not brush past that too quickly. Despite the perceived connection between the military and the GOP, and arguments that the troops and their families are necessarily conservative, military families prefer Democrats to Republicans on issues relating to their needs.


It’s a welcome change.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13839.html

[cutthemdown]

what they see maybe is the 40% who support Bush and are conservative are the officers. Since in the military they are the ones talking to the media it does come off that way maybe?

[That One Guy]

Of course families are going to be in favor of bringing their loved one home tomorrow. Even the best, warm hearted individuals would prefer wars be fought by someone other than their loved ones. That's no suprise and understandable.

[baja]

Maybe starting wars isn't such a good thing to be doing in the first place.

Blackwater is about the worst thing we can be doing. <b>Once you contract out war, all is lost.</b>

QFT

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Of course families are going to be in favor of bringing their loved one home tomorrow.

That's not what it said.

Specifically, nearly 60% of military families disapprove of the president’s performance and his handling of the war in Iraq.

[That One Guy]

"Perhaps most importantly, a clear majority (58%) of these families “favor a withdrawal within the coming year or ‘right away.’”

Yeah, it said both. I kinda lump it together. They don't like his performance because it's kept their loved one away however many times in the last 5 years. I figure since one is nearly 60% and the other is 58%, you probably have the same people in both of those groups.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Perhaps most importantly, a clear majority (58%) of these families “favor a withdrawal within the coming year or ‘right away.’”

Yeah, it said both. I kinda lump it together. They don't like his performance because it's kept their loved one away however many times in the last 5 years. I figure since one is nearly 60% and the other is 58%, you probably have the same people in both of those groups.

The trouble with that spin job is that you missed this critical statement:

In both instances, the opinions of military families are in line with those of the U.S. civilian population.

[That One Guy]

The trouble with that spin job is that you missed this critical statement:

I wasn't denying your report, just saying that polling soldier's families isn't going to get you any real data. Of course they want their people home. I'm actually very skeptical that more families aren't saying bring em home tomorrow but I have no reason to debate their facts.

I wasn't really doing anything but commenting, not debating your article at all.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I wasn't denying your report, just saying that polling soldier's families isn't going to get you any real data.

???

Did you read this?

In both instances, the opinions of military families are in line with those of the U.S. civilian population.

[BroncoBuff]

cah is doing yeoman's work defending the indefensible this weekend ... pretty sad there, cah.


If the burden sounds heavier than what families bore in the longest wars of the 20th century — World War II and Vietnam — that's because it is, at least in some ways. What makes today's wars distinctive is the deployment pattern — two, three, sometimes four overseas stints of 12 or 15 months. In the past, that kind of schedule was virtually unheard of.
This topic makes me just about want to cry. These soldiers and their families largely come from socio-economic classes that have very litle upward mobility ... and because there's no military draft, nobody sound the alarm, nobody cares. These families suffer endlessly, while the rest of us go to Wal-Mart, and Bush and Cheney's pals transfer enormous monolithic blocks of federal monies to their friends via no-bid contracts.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the real reason behind Iraq ...the real reason Cheney spent all that time setting up an alternative intelligence-gathering outfit in the Pentagon with Douglas Feith, and then took their trumped up data over to CIA to force down Paul Pillar's throat so he'd write that dangerous NIE that prompted Colin Powell's UN speech ... the more I think about all this, the more I think it was about the massive transfer of federal money into private hands.

Let's face it ... the REAL money to be made, the REAL motherlode of dollars for a globally-oriented oligarchican like Cheney is the federal teasury, the federal budget. And what better way to transfer massive, colossal sums of federal dollars into provate hands, but with a war. A war where GIs no longer doing the cooking, nor the cleaning nor the other ancillary duties, but where the federal government pays out - through massive, overpaid, layered with fat no-bid contracts - tens of billions of dollars to corporations, many of which are spin-offs of Halliburton, where Cheney was CEO.

And do it all off-budget.

When there is no draft to piss people off.

And where 9/11 provides the scary, scary cover.

Makes sense to me ....

[That One Guy]

???

Did you read this?

yeah, that's what I said I thought was interesting because I figured the soldier's families would be more inclined to say bring em home tomorrow but apparently there's more that still believe in the cause.

[cutthemdown]

yeah, that's what I said I thought was interesting because I figured the soldier's families would be more inclined to say bring em home tomorrow but apparently there's more that still believe in the cause.

I think it's because people have seen what it does to troops when you say you have lost. Time to come home losers you couldn't win. After that makes them feel it was all for nothing. It's the whole Vietnam thing where the country hated war so much they ended up not giving the returning troops the glory and support they deserved.

[That One Guy]

cah is doing yeoman's work defending the indefensible this weekend ... pretty sad there, cah.



I hardly ever take a stance of an indefensible topic. The sad part is that these topics are rehashed over and over and you guys all come to generally agreed upon ideas and then want to treat them as facts. Trying to convince an entire population that swears apples are blue when they're really red is no simple task. You can point out the error in their ways but when their neighbor continues to say it's blue, the first guy's opinion is reaffirmed and you'll never get anywhere.

You guys eat blue apples...

I must commend everyone though, I had avoided this place for a long time because the name calling got so bad, so fast, but recently it's been pretty good. I may be called stupid but at least my mom, my wife, my kids, and my ancestor's remains are left out of it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

yeah, that's what I said I thought was interesting because I figured the soldier's families would be more inclined to say bring em home tomorrow but apparently there's more that still believe in the cause.

My point was that you implied that military families' assessments of Bush's performance and/or his handling of the war were somehow less reliable or less credible than those of the general population when, in fact, the study indicated that the family members' views mirrored those of the general American population.

[That One Guy]

My point was that you implied that military families' assessments of Bush's performance and/or his handling of the war were somehow less reliable or less credible than those of the general population when, in fact, the study indicated that the family members' views mirrored those of the general American population.

Nobody's opinion is less credible in a "what do you think" type questionaire but I definitely expected them to be shaded and more predisposed to say "bring em home". If they didn't as the stats apparently show, that's interesting and I'm suprised.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nobody's opinion is less credible in a "what do you think" type questionaire but I definitely expected them to be shaded and more predisposed to say "bring em home". If they didn't as the stats apparently show, that's interesting and I'm suprised.

I'm not surprised - only a handful of Kool-Aid guzzling partisans and Bush die-hards are unable or unwilling to see what an unprecedented fiasco this war is.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/taliban-progress.jpg
</center>

[Earendil]

<center> http://www.bartcop.com/taliban-progress.jpg
</center>
This still makes me livid. We've pulled so many soldiers from so many legitimate combat theaters it stuns me. North Korea has nukes pointed at L.A. (the city, not the poster) so let's shift 35K troops from there to Iraq to fight a non-existent threat. Let's cede control of Afghanistan back to the Taliban after we'd driven them out because it's more important to settle the Bush/Hussein family feud.

Our LEGITIMATE strategic interests are being sacrificed because Bush can't admit he's wrong and we have the misfortune to have him occupying the White House. Is it January yet?

[That One Guy]

I'm not surprised - only a handful of Kool-Aid guzzling partisans and Bush die-hards are unable or unwilling to see what an unprecedented fiasco this war is.

Somewhere we're disconnecting. I'm simply saying there's more families still pro-war than I thought there'd be. Sometimes I think you're just programmed to generate personal attacks without regard to the conversation.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Somewhere we're disconnecting. I'm simply saying there's more families still pro-war than I thought there'd be. Sometimes I think you're just programmed to generate personal attacks without regard to the conversation.

No - this is what you said:

Nobody's opinion is less credible in a "what do you think" type questionaire but I definitely expected them to be shaded and more predisposed to say "bring em home". If they didn't as the stats apparently show, that's interesting and I'm suprised.

[That One Guy]

No - this is what you said:

If those two statements aren't from the same mold, I must've been sleepy. I'm not sure shaded was the word I was going for, but the intent is there in both statements. I often type sleepy, it's a habit I must get over. I just meant I figured more families would be saying Bring em Home, that's all.

[BroncoBuff]

I thought your statements were a bit contradictory too, cah ...

Universal Truth: Soldiers and their families are FAAAR more likely than civilians to toe the line, follow orders, fight the fight, not back down (especialy in a war burdened by facetious "win" and "lose" labels), and support the Commander-in-Chief. The fact they're bolting is very telling.

[BroncoBuff]

Is it January yet?
:( (my thoughts exactly ... ::) )


I like to pass the time by finding new and creative number images to add to the "COUNTDOWN TO THE END OF THE NMIGHTMARE" thread ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I thought your statements were a bit contradictory too, cah ...

Universal Truth: Soldiers and their families are FAAAR more likely than civilians to toe the line, follow orders, fight the fight, not back down (especialy in a war burdened by facetious "win" and "lose" labels), and support the Commander-in-Chief. The fact they're bolting is very telling.

QFT.

And the poll showed that the opinions of the military families mirrored those of the general American population.

(So much for cah412's insinuation the the opinions of the families should be taken with a grain of salt.)

Funny how cah412 pretends to "support the troops" in one breath and tells their families "your opinions re: Bush's job performance/handling of the war are not to be trusted" in the next.