First let me clarify that I certainly support our women in uniform – my close friendship with fellow author on this blog and 30-year Army combat veteran GI Jane demonstrates that. However, Washington Post’s latest attack on the military establishment is so petty it doesn’t belong on the front of today’s edition. In “Short Maternity Leaves, Long Deployments“, Ann Scott Tyson writes;
Many female soldiers hoping to start families face the prospect of missing most of their child’s first year. The Army grants six weeks of maternity leave before a new mother must return to her job or training, and four months until she can be sent to a war zone. The Marine Corps and Navy allow from six months to a year before a new mother must deploy.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed severe strains on the Army, including longer deployments in which soldiers serve 15 months in the war zone, followed by 12 months at home. Under that system, a woman who wishes to have a child and remain with her unit must conceive soon after returning home so she can give birth, recover and prepare for her next overseas tour.
It seems to me that a responsible pair of parents wouldn’t want to bring their child into a situation which risks the absence of one or both parents for extended periods of time.
The constraints on reproduction, child-rearing and family are a key factor leading many female soldiers to quit the Army, and have discouraged many civilian women from considering enlistment, according to Army officials. Surveys show that time away from families, because of long, frequent deployments, is the top reason for soldiers to leave the Army. The willingness of women to serve in the military has dropped faster than that of men in recent years, from a high of 10 percent among 16- to 21-year-olds in November 2003 to 4 percent last July, according to periodic youth surveys on “propensity to serve” conducted for the Army.
Well, it looks like American women have found a solution to their dilemma – they get out or they don’t join. SO why is this a front page story? I’m so sure that aren’t millions of women waiting to join the military if only they’d extend the maternity leave to, say, five years like the Post seems to suggest is reasonable.
…said Maj. Gen. Gale Pollock, deputy Army surgeon general for force management.
“We need to look at the fact that many women want to serve but they also want to be mothers,” Pollock said. “It’s a medical issue, it’s a mental health issue. Your ability to bond with your children is . . . very important.”
Pollock said last summer that she had proposed that the Army double the time women are exempt from deployment from four to eight months, noting that she would prefer 12 months. “That addresses the need for breast-feeding that is important for health, and also allows for optimal bonding time,” she said.
So far, Army policy remains unchanged, spokeswoman Cynthia Vaughan said this month. Senior Army officials declined requests to explain the reasoning behind the current policy.
Other services grant longer exemptions, and all have generally shorter deployments: The Navy exemption is 12 months, and the Marine Corps’s is six months, and deployments average seven months for both. The Air Force has a four-month exemption, but its deployments average only four to six months.
Well, since all of the services have different policies according to their force needs in theater, the Army arrived at their policy logically. But, if a woman wants to serve in the military she has an array of choices, doesn’t she? She certainly doesn’t need the Washington Post reporter with her a the recruiting station to help her.
