Families That Fight Together

The newspaper photos seemed to say it all: the couple in fatigues beams blissfully because the U.S. Army has decided that married couples can co-habit in the Iraqi war zone. The article goes on to inform readers how the new policy is expected to improve morale and possibly help with troop retention. Has the American public been shown the face of the kinder, gentler army?

The object of any war is to win, and although the definition of victory may be amorphous in this case, the will of the military to achieve it is unquestioned. To that end, expect military leaders, including the commander-in-chief, to use whatever means they deem necessary to accomplish it.

While the benefits touted by the promoters of the policy undoubtedly exist, more devious motives may be at work. The couple shown in the publicity photos is darling, with the all-American, innocent good looks that belie the nature of their professions as soldiers. One of the couples' living quarters is described as having an "impressive collection of stuffed animals." Why all this touchy-feely stuff in the U.S. Army?

Repeated deployments and stop-loss orders have rankled many who signed contracts which they now find to be binding on only one party-them. Stop Loss, a recent Hollywood release, highlights military staffing problems and the approach it has taken to alleviate them. The problems injured veterans encounter in trying to obtain medical and psychological care after discharge are well known. National Guard members, who have borne the brunt of operations, have even worse post-deployment difficulties.

The National Guard still sells itself on TV to a young audience facing a severe economic downturn at home as a way to earn extra money and college tuition with little commitment beyond one weekend each month. A disproportionate amount of this advertising appears on Spanish-language network Telemundo, where National Guard advertising may run as many as eight times per hour on a weeknight.

The ink is barely dry on the contract before young enlistees find themselves preparing to ship out to war zones. Recruiters paint a rosy picture with a "possibility of deployment" that never sounds like the near certainty it is. Young married couples having trouble making ends meet consider joining up for the financial incentives while ignoring the cold, hard facts that soldiers are at extreme risk for death and injury while engaged in prosecuting a war. In short, they pretend to themselves that no one will be shooting at them until the fact becomes all too real.

While members of the armed services are generally presented in the media as being 100% behind the "War on Terror," it is at least reasonable to assume that they oppose the war in the same proportion as the general public. Public opinion against the war is rising, even though the fact is not well publicized, and pressure is building on the U.S. Congress to take the situation in hand. In the midst of this, the army presents its new program to help married soldiers face the rigors of war zones. In a war where the news is overwhelmingly bad, this program is a breath of fresh air.  

The public is desperate for some good news, and war, being the massively wasteful, brutal and destructive thing it is produces too little of it. The new policy, which affects only a small number of service members, holds out hope to many that the army really does care for its people, even if it does continue to send them places where the national pastime seems to be watching soldiers play dodge-the-RPG.