top of page

WHEN THE MILITARY TELLS YOU YOU'RE INVISIBLE


I went to a yellow ribbon event recently, which was super exciting.

Actually, if you've ever been to one, you know that's probably a lie. It was briefings on briefings the whole day. At one point, service members and significant others were separated, and that's when it got interesting. The woman leading this portion was great, and had everyone write down what deployment meant to them and went through as many as she had time for. In the middle, the commander came in to talk to us.

I could have sworn he swept in, passed out invisibility cloaks, and said, "Here, stop whining and put this on for the next year...your spouse will not be needing to hear from you and I will not be needing you messing with my people! Don't tell your service member about your problems. He has his own stuff to worry about and doesn't need to hear about your life."

From the hands raised there are lots of first-deployment significant others along for the ride and he basically said not to tell significant others about ANY PROBLEMS, he doesn't need or want to hear about you since he will be otherwise engaged, and for heaven's sake stop worrying. It's not a dangerous mission, and I think privates and junior NCOs may just not be doing a good job of informing their SOs since they don't really know much themselves. But would a little people skills have killed him?

If you have limited time to talk to your service member, I think you should choose wisely what topics to cover in those treasured moments, and negativity and complaining should be kept to a minimum. You prioritize the best things to talk about in those situations. However, if you have the opportunity to talk to your service member more often, you have the chance to share more. Negativity should be avoided as a general life rule, even when sharing bad stuff, but sometimes the hard stuff needs to be told too. Even in circumstances where you can't talk often, you still need to communicate the big things. If you don't keep your person informed of what's going on he/she will be walking into a tornado of guilt, misinformation, and cluelessness upon reintegration.

So, this is not for the commander who leads with strength, compassion, and comprehensive care. This is for anyone holding a leadership position in the military that may feel military families are a necessary evil.

We are an asset, not a burden.

"But Erin," you say. "People skills are not a prerequisite for becoming a commander. Their job doesn't require ooey gooey feelings and tip-toeing around emotions." You're right. But considering that we have lost more soldiers to suicide within our borders than to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined, I would say that if you are striving for excellence and watching out for the best interest of your men, anything that aids and supports your soldiers should be important to you. Physically, mentally, spiritually, and, that's right, emotionally. One of the greatest ways you can prepare your soldiers for battle is to support and appreciate their spouses and families.

You should care, if for no other reason than because doing so allows your soldiers to be the best they can be. You should care, if for no other reason than because a good leader seeks to understand the aspects of his men's lives that influence their physical and mental health...and uses this information to support the men in what they are doing. Every single one of my points is backed by research, so you don't have to take my word for it. To show you I'm serious, I'm going to go full nerd and make my points with scholarly, peer-reviewed research and APA formatted citations.

The quality of military marriages are directly correlated to the soldier's mental health.

In a study of 193 married Army men recently returned from deployment, men in couples who used delayed communication avenues such as care packages, letters, and emails more often had significantly lower levels of PTSD symptoms than those that did not (Carter et al., 2011). The study showed that this relationship between communication and low levels of PTSD symptoms after deployment only held true of couples with higher satisfaction in their marriages. Low marital satisfaction couples who communicated frequently via delayed communication were predictive of higher PTSD symptom scores, further revealing the link between marriage quality and mental health...for better or for worse. In addition, social support has been found to play a role in defense against PTSD, and spousal support is critical.

Though the same general effect was seen in other forms of communication as well, phone calls, Skype, and texting frequency was not a significant predictor of PTSD symptoms (Carter et al., 2011). The authors speculate that delayed communication may provide palpable objects the soldier can return to time and again for support, encouragement and comfort, and are often more thought out and articulate. Letters also remove any obstacles to communication such as calls being dropped or not wanting to be overheard by others. Delayed communication from spouses in high satisfaction marriages may communicate in more positive, supportive, loving ways as opposed to spouses in low satisfaction marriages who may convey negativity and other less savory sentiments, removing the supportive element so essential to a marriage. Low morale in units, low self-esteem, and negative thought patterns in soldiers have also been shown to be predictors of PTSD symptoms later (Skopp et al., 2011), so military leaders would be remiss to overlook the massive influence of the marital relationship on a soldier's thought life.

Deployment can be a time of growth, support, and depth in the marital relationship or a time of distress that weighs down soldier and spouse alike.

The Chinese character for "crisis" combines the words "danger" and "opportunity," and deployments often serve as a fork in the road offering both options. They say that absence makes the heart grow fonder, but they also say out of sight, out of mind. The truth is, distance is like a gust of wind to a fire - it snuffs out the weak, but fuels the strong. In a study of 434 married couples between Army husbands and civilian wives, relationship functioning was not impacted by whether or not the husband had been deployed the previous year (Allen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2010). The study showed that PTSD symptoms take a toll on marriages, and marital satisfaction often takes a hit in these circumstances, but deployment as a whole did not shake the relationship. Allen et al. (2010) continue that some couples may experience long-term negative affects in their marriages, but for others deployments only bring couples closer together and increase their enjoyment in the relationship.

Deployments are hard on every member of the family. This difficulty sometimes manifests itself in different ways, but it's hard. It is no surprise that research confirms that single, unattached service members report more positive and fewer negative consequences of deployment than do their married counterparts (Newby et al., 2005; Skopp et al., 2011). Perhaps some military higher-ups resent the military family for adding stress to the service member, instead of seeking to capitalize on the many positive outcomes marriage provides for the soldier. After all, it is well documented that marriage is correlated with better physical and psychological health as well as longer life - especially for males - and now we know that strong spousal support can even protect against posttraumatic stress to a certain extent.

Communication aides in adjustment, and better adjusted people are less likely to be negative.

Military spouse attachment styles influence what strategies they employ to cope with the separation, driving them to either become totally self-reliant and emotionally avoidant or to achieve an "autonomous interdependence" through staying emotionally connected to one another (Cafferky & Shi, 2015). Spouses that had greater access to their husbands adjusted to deployment more successfully, and it is reasonable to contemplate that better adjusted spouses may be less likely to be negative and better equipped to provide the support the service member needs. Thus, if spouses are taken care of, they can tap into a reservoir of internal resources and resilience in order to be there for and boost the morale of their soldiers on the other side of the globe. According to Cafferky and Shi (2015), wives who are able to stay connected with their husbands throughout deployment navigate deployment and reintegration more successfully.

Over the course of deployment, the military wives in the study experienced a wide range of emotions including pride, anxiety, sadness, fear, anger, insecurity, gratitude, and excitement (Cafferky & Shi, 2015). Wives who thought of themselves as independent, capable, resourceful people were still rocked by deployment in some way, and dealt with it "by adopting three types of coping mechanisms: coping that pursued unrealistic closeness to their husbands (which sacrificed their own emotional well-being), coping that emotionally distanced themselves from their deployed husbands (to preserve their emotional well-being), and coping that drew on the strength of their emotional connection with their deployed husbands (which strengthened their emotional well-being)." Thus, there must be a balance between expecting to talk more than is realistic and pulling away, cutting themselves off from emotions in self-preservation.

To give the man credit, it's true that families often are a source of stress. Service members are worried about their families. It could be that the commander felt that with more opportunities to talk, families have more opportunities to distract soldiers and drag them down. On the other hand, it could also be the reverse - being used to not having communication in past deployments, the commander may have seen constant negative communication from low satisfaction marriages tainting the psychological world of the soldier. It seems that research supports the idea that the marital relationship has an incredible impact on the psychological resilience of the soldier. Perhaps the commander has encountered too many negative communication spouses that throw off his men, or he sees how much easier it can be for the single and unattached soldiers to deploy with less weight on their shoulders from a family. Either way, it would be to the benefit of the military to recognize the massive support potential from spouses, providing a buffer against negative affects of deployment. Promoting this relationship, as well as healthy communication patterns, could lead to enabling soldiers to be the best soldiers they can be.

The reality on the other side

There are over a million military wives alive today, representing a population in which stress and mental disorders are highly pervasive in comparison with their civilian counterparts (Lewy, Oliver, & McFarland, 2014). However, despite the significant mental health concerns for this population, relatively little has been done to provide competent sources of support and mental health services for them, and military wives have been largely ignored in research (Aducci, Baptist, George, Barros & Goff, 2011). Thus, this population not only needs support and care, but also reveals a void in the literature and exposes an important area for future research.

Military wives often experience a roller coaster of emotions, going through highs and lows and a myriad of in-between stages. The greatest times of stress occur during and surrounding the deployments of their husbands, when these women often find themselves juggling multiple stressors simultaneously. Examples of these include tension in marital relationships, house and vehicle maintenance, financial problems, children acting out or struggling emotionally, and general reorganizing of the family structure and routine (Wood, Scarville & Gravino, 1995). Military spouses often experience helplessness, psychological and emotional pain, a lack of support, and women with children must transition into a single parent role (Aducci et al., 2011). Loneliness, anger, and depression may also arise, and substantial stress can cause physical effects to weight, sleep, normal menstruation and overall health (Wood, Scarville & Gravino, 1995).

On top of it all, not only have wives often lost their primary support in their husbands, but they often are also dealing with unemployment, pregnancy, or recent moves common to military life (Wood, Scarville & Gravino, 1995). According to Vincenzes, Haddock, and Hickman (2014), wives often go through a grief and mourning process during deployments comparable to the Kübler-Ross model, grappling with denial, anger, and depression in particular. Unfortunately, military wives also have a tendency to put their best foot forward and feel they must not reveal negative sides to themselves, which causes other mental health concerns from learning to bottle emotions inside (Aducci et al., 2011).

Although military wives are often overwhelmed by the various stressors they experience in and around deployment and some struggle severely to adjust, not all women readjust to deployments with significant difficulty (Wood, Scarville & Gravino, 1995). Although there are additional factors contributing to successful adjustment, groups have been shown effective with this population. Family readiness groups, or FRGs, often have groups for military families that provide strong support. Relatively small groups at the battalion level or lower seem to be helpful to military spouses. Unfortunately, there are less resources for National Guard and Reserves military spouses due to women not living on the same base together, and young wives or women new to the military often are unaware of pertinent information and resources at their disposal, and are slow to find support. In addition, junior NCOs and wives who are immature or have less experience in the military are more likely to struggle in adapting to deployment and often do not know the resources available to them.

What it all means

We military spouses will take care of each other. In the Guard, sometimes it is hard to connect, but we will do the best we can. During deployment, we will establish new friendships and deepen current ones. We will lean on these friendships for day-to-day support. We will learn about ourselves, we will grow as people, and we will exercise independence. We love our soldiers, and want to do what is best for them. I will continue to be transparent with my husband, as I have been throughout our relationship. There are some difficulties I probably won't tell him about until after they are resolved, but I will still tell him about most difficulties one way or another. There are other struggles I am likely to tell my husband, as I will tell him positive things as well, because I want to be genuine and for us to continue to get to know one another over deployment. I will prompt my husband to talk to me about how he is doing and ways I can support and encourage him.

I cannot promise that all military spouses will communicate in a supportive manner. I wish they would, but unfortunately there are many hurts in this world, and those relationships are likely to be negative whether at home or away. As for me, I am committed to being the best life partner I can be, and though we will all make mistakes, I strive for excellence and am aware of your weighty commission. I do not take it lightly. Take care of your men, and I will take care of my man. The Army can dictate where military families live, how long they live there, when they can plan a family, what jobs are practical for spouses, and a hundred other things, but the Army cannot dictate what I talk to my husband about. I am a responsible and loving wife and adult. If you support us, you will bolster the health of your company. It is reasonable to ask spouses not to terrify their service members with stresses of home, but not sharing one another's lives for a year would be detrimental to your soldiers on a myriad of levels and create greater stressors upon reintegration, which as a commander I am sure you know can be an incredibly trying time. Readjusting is hard. Use us. Support your men by supporting us. We are here for them.

 

References

Aducci, C. J., Baptist, J. A., George, J., Barros, P. M., & Nelson Goff, B. S. (2011). The recipe for being a good military wife:

How military wives managed OIF/OEF deployment. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 23(1), 231-249.

Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Hitting home: Relationships between recent deployment, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and marital functioning for Army couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 280-288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019405

Cafferky, B. & Shi, L. (2015). Military wives emotionally coping during deployment: Balancing dependence and independence. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 43(3), 282-295. DOI: 10.1080/01926187.2015.1034633

Carter, S., Loew, B., Allen, E., Stanley, S., Rhoades, G., & Markman, H. (2011). Relationships between soldiers’ PTSD symptoms and spousal communication during deployment. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(3), 352-355. DOI: 10.1002/jts.20649

Lewy, C. S., Oliver, C. M. & McFarland, B. H. (2014). Barriers to mental health treatment for military wives. Psychiatric Services, 65(9), 1170-1173.

Newby, J. H., McCarroll, J. E., Ursano, R. J., Fan, Z., Shigemura, J., & Tucker-Harris, Y. (2005). Positive and negative consequences of a military deployment. Military Medicine, 170(10), 815-9.

Skopp, N. A., Reger, M. A., Reger, G. M., Mishkind, M. C., Raskind, M. & Gahm, G. A. (2011). The role of intimate relationships, appraisals of military service, and gender on the development of posttraumatic stress symptoms following Iraq deployment. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(3), 277-286. DOI: 10.1002/jts.20632

Vincenzes, K. A., Haddock, L., & Hickman, G. (2014). The implications of attachment theory for military wives: Effects during a post-deployment period. The Professional Counselor, 4(2), 122-128.

Wood, S., Scarville, J., & Gravino, K. S. (1995). Waiting wives: Separation and reunion among army wives. Armed Forces and Society, 21(2), 217-237.


bottom of page