Enlisted soldiers and Marines divorced their spouses at a higher rate in fiscal 2008 than at any other time in at least 16 years, according to Pentagon data released Tuesday.
About 4% of married enlisted troops in the Army and Marines, or 8,842 GIs and 2,842 Marines, obtained divorces during fiscal 2008, the numbers show. The data reflect a steady upward trend in divorce among the Army enlisted since 2003 and enlisted Marines since 2005.
The rate of married enlisted soldiers getting divorced went from 3.7% in 2007 to 3.9%. For married enlisted Marines, the rate went from 3.6% to 4%, records show.
From 2007 to 2008, there was a 5.4% increase in divorces for soldiers, and an 11% increase for Marines, records show.
Makes the heart sad. Read it all.
This is nothing new, and it’s not at all surprising; it’s been a part of military life for generations. Young enlisted personnel of all branches of the Armed Forces have been marrying too young and facing long deployments and family separations since the beginning of our involvment in World War 2 to the present day. I saw it quite often during my long Air Force career, especially when airmen were transferred to remote radar stations in places such as Thule Air Base, Greenland, where no dependents are permitted. Wrecked marriages were common, but for more mature NCOs and officers such as me, for instance, our marriages, though often somewhat financially strained, survived. Low service pay was and is a big factor in these divorces, and it will no doubt remain a big factor.
It was odd that the report omits the Navy, which historically has the highest incidence of unaccompanied duty. However, the answer may be that the focus is limited to the impacts of Iraq and Afghanistan, which fall primarily on the Marines and Army.
Coincidentally, 1992 is close to the year women were allowed in combat. There are many other sources, but here is one:
Charen, Mona. Why Does the United States Put Its Mothers Into Combat? Insight on the News 19:50 April 29-May 12 2003.
“How did we get here? Under current regulations, women are not permitted in direct combat units. But they’re allowed to get very close. Until 1994, women were forbidden even in units that were “at risk” for contact with the enemy or capture. Under pressure from feminists who seek to erase all sexual discrimination from the military, president Bill Clinton’s secretary of defense, Les Aspin, eliminated “inherent risk of capture” from the risk assessments of noncombat units.”
What are you suggesting Charles B? Mona Charen has a problem with women in the military and I found a response to one of her editorials that I wrote and sent to my local paper in Nov 1998. Back then Mona said women hurt our readiness. But it was the high operations tempo that was hurting us. And I submit to you that it’s the high operations tempo that is hurting military marriages now, along with the other factors Cennydd mentions. My editorial follows:
——-
I am responding to Mona Charen’s editorial “Sapping the Strength of the Military.”
Ms. Charen just doesn’t get it. What has sapped the strength of the military is not a few good women in the ranks and trenches, but increased time away from home and families for our military members, decreased military budgets, decreased benefits and a widening pay gap. Add to that a tremendous drawdown in forces, and those dedicated soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are forced to do more with much less.
In an October 22nd interview with the American Forces Press Service, Defense Secretary William Cohen and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry Shelton said they will work to close the gap between civilian and military pay and make the military retirement system more attractive. Both leaders said increased pay and benefits are critical to retention, especially at the mid-career level. Shelton said DOD and the services are trying to reduce the operations tempo through various initiatives, including relying more on the Guard and Reserves.
Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters has also expressed his concern with the high operations tempo and its effect on morale. In an October 28 statement to all Air Force personnel he said, “It’s clear to me that many of you are deployed too often,” Peters said. “Or you are overworked when at your home base because you’re doing both your job and the jobs of those deployed. Our increased operations tempo — the result of reducing forces by 33 percent while increasing deployments fourfold — has put heavy strains on you and your family. . . You’ve done everything we’ve asked — and more — but we’ve been asking too much. This needs to stop, and it will, with our reorganization into an Expeditionary Aerospace Force over the next 12 months.” Peters also acknowledged that erosion of benefits has hurt retention.
Charen also points to the pilot shortage as another symptom of male discontent with women in the service. Here again, the high operations tempo is partly to blame. Patriotism alone cannot make up for the months spent away from home enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq, or “guarding the sandbox” as the pilots call it. Simple economics also explains the pilot shortage. The airlines are hiring in record numbers and the lure of much more pay and more time at home is tempting to even the staunchest of patriots.
Let’s face it, the men and women in our Armed Forces are doing a job most Americans would not ever want to do. Why does it surprise us that many of them are deciding they don’t want to serve anymore? What will it take for us to realize we get what we pay for?
Until then, Charen and the Center for Military Readiness should quit hiding behind the skirts (and combat boots) of our American servicewomen and face up to the real causes of decreased military readiness. They are correct in claiming that sexual harassment and misconduct are offenses which should not be tolerated in our Armed Forces, but those offenses are not at the heart of the readiness problem.
Ralinda
Women have always been in the military, just not in combat until the early 1990’s. Just wondering if there is a correlation in the increase in divorce statistics from the same period. I have personal experience with this. A close family member who served in Iraq with women in his unit had an affair that ended his marriage. We love this person dearly, but it caused much suffering and estrangement in the family. We carry on, forgive, keep loving and try to make the best of it.
The very nature of the institution demands that men be soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors first and husbands and fathers second. Military marriages are inherently difficult.
The needs and exigencies of the Service must ALWAYS come first, and the professionals in the Armed Forces know this. Wife and family ARE important, as any married serviceperson will tell you, yet they will tell you that their service obligations come first.
I remember hearing a squadron First Sergeant telling a young airman whom I supervised who wanted to get married that “if the Air Force wanted you to have a wife, they’d have issued one to you;” tongue-in-cheek, of course, but it was his way of saying that that young man couldn’t afford to get married.
I met that same young airman three years later when we were assigned in Germany together and he again was under my supervision, and unfortunately, that First Sergeant’s statement had proven true; the young airman and his wife had divorced. Immaturity, the lack of sufficient income, and consequent inability to support a family on service pay resulted in the split.
[i]A close family member who served in Iraq with women in his unit had an affair that ended his marriage.[/i]
Put people of the opposite sex together in high stress situations far from home and this sort of thing is really quite predictable. Other than perhaps a very few support positions, nurses, e.g., women in the military is an experiment that should have ended long ago. Their very presence changes the nature of the institution. The whole purpose of military training is to break men down and rebuild them according to the institution’s needs. This process of breaking and rebuilding is hard enough for men: my platoon in Parris Island (an entirely insignificant stint in the Marine Reserves) lost 20 recruits over the 12 weeks. The training must be completely altered to accomodate women who, except for perhaps a few outliers, just do not respond to that kind of process.
Women in combat, much less the military, is doubly perverse. Men absolutely lose all control when they hear women screaming in pain and fear. That’s why last I heard the Israeli army reversed itself on that particular policy.
The tragedy of today’s military families is the Cheney/Bush/neocon policies that arbitrarily extend tours, give low pay for noncoms, too much work for too few soldiers, and short shrift to military families. All this to avoid drafting young Americans!
In other wars, the young served. But in this war, reservists age 55 are serving on the front lines! (I know this from personal experience). Our National Guard isn’t home guarding the homefront, they are helping Halliburton & Co keep a lid on Iraq! This is NUTS!!!
This Administration has treated our fine troops and their families shamefully! Why hasn’t the President shown the decency, the courtesy, to publicly welcomed back the dead soldiers from his war half a world away? We all know why: to keep this war and the sacrifices of our military famililes off the front pages!
This deplorable conduct has put intolerable strain on our troops and their families. It’s not at all surprising that more are divorcing, especially the younger ones. They are broke and separated for far, far longer than Uncle Sam originally promised. Shame on Cheney/Bush, and shame on us for electing them to a second term!