Edition: U.S. / Global

Boots on the Ground, Family Back Home

Published: September 21, 2003


The Army's decision to keep its Reserve forces in Iraq on duty for a full year from their arrival may have profound consequences for both the Army and the war in Iraq. While the Army will gain increased flexibility with its "boots on the ground," the long deployments may demoralize reservists. When mobilization and demobilization are included, 12 months on duty in Iraq will mean a 14- to 16-month separation from family and career for reservists.

"Fair doesn't mean equal," a battalion commander once told me. But the message to reservists is unmistakable: the Army no longer takes into account sacrifices made to maintain two careers and lives. Many reservists will watch the regular soldiers with whom they came to Iraq go home before they do. The Army may not care about the disparity between the way the forces are treated, but those of us in the Reserve do.

Everyone knows that the regular and Reserve units of the Army are not equal. Regulars are better trained, better equipped and expected to execute their missions more professionally. That's the way it should be: it's their job — their only job.

Reservists have jobs in the civilian world. For a reservist, every day in uniform is a day away from what might be (or might have been) a promising career. Despite the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination against an employee because of military service, we understand that when a dispute with an employer arises, the reservist always loses — even if the employer is forced to take us back. What's more, many of us don't serve long enough to qualify for a military pension — and even if we do, it's not enough to compensate for opportunities missed while we were deployed.

Hardships on Reserve families have increased with longer and more frequent deployments. Reservists don't always have ready access to a military base and its support programs. Left to fend for themselves, Reserve families are becoming more vocal about their unhappiness with the situation. Politicians may not be listening to their complaints, but you can bet we husbands and wives overseas are hearing their pain.

The Army is fond of bragging about the advantages of the all-volunteer force. But reservists are volunteers, too. We sign up for the Reserve when we leave the Army because we want to continue to serve with people we respect. We sign up because we want to serve our country. We sign up for extra income or educational benefits. Some of us sign up to be part of history, for the possibility of adventure. But nobody signs up for occupation duty, especially occupation of a country that never officially surrendered.

It is not a question of performing our duty. I have served as a peacekeeper in the Balkans, a job that most of us found hard but acceptable. Even though most active-duty soldiers were deployed to Bosnia or Kosovo on 180-day assignments — 90 days shorter than us reservists — my unit didn't suffer from a flood of resignations after Balkan duty. In fact, we laughed that reservists were providing more continuity there than the regulars.

The problem in Iraq is that the Army doesn't seem to know what to do with us. The Army has only one civil affairs battalion on active duty. Its job is to get in fast, stabilize the situation and then hand responsibilities to a mobilized Reserve unit as quickly as possible.

That's where my Reserve civil affairs brigade comes in. I am a communications officer in a unit filled with higher-ranking officers. Why so many senior soldiers in a civil affairs brigade? Because our knowledge, skills and experience, gained in the civilian world, make us valuable in rebuilding countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the case of my brigade, we've had nothing to do for almost a month. We were originally deployed in support of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, but when it went south to Kuwait at the end of August to begin its journey home, we were left to cool our heels. Our three battalions were dispersed on far-flung assignments. One battalion was sent to Bosnia on a scheduled peacekeeping rotation; another was split, with half reinforcing the 101st Air Assault Division. The remaining soldiers are filling holes in my own unit.

So here in a makeshift base camp, we have a brigade headquarters with few reservists to command and no regular Army commander to support. The feeling throughout the ranks is that we are being held in place while someone tries to think of something for us to do. We've been assured that new orders will be published "any day now," but we've heard that before.

The advantage of experienced reservists to a unit is immeasurable. But here in Iraq, I am hearing more soldiers talk about calling it quits when they return to the States. Even though some soldiers are only four or five years from qualifying for retirement pay and benefits, they're getting out. The constant deployments are difficult for families and careers, they say, and waiting around for retirement benefits is no longer worth it.

The evidence I see in other units around me is the same: the United States Army is about to see a mass exodus from its Reserve.

For me, the length of time I spend in Iraq is less important than getting the job done right. I don't want my son to have to come here in five years because we messed it up. But if the Army continues its policy of year-plus tours for its Reserve forces in Iraq and elsewhere, it will soon find those ranks empty.

The question the Army faces is simple: will more frequent, extended deployments dry up the Reserve pool? We need an answer soon. If the Reserve continue to be misused, soldiers will vote with their feet when they get home. By then it will be too late for the Army to figure out what went wrong.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that we need to be fair to reservists, their families and their employers. If reservists are forced to spend too much time on active duty, he said, "we're going to end up losing them, and we can't afford to lose them."

From my perspective, however, we're already losing them. The real impact of the Army's policy on Reserve deployments won't be felt until long after his watch. But because everything bad that happens is the commander's fault, Mr. Rumsfeld's tenure may be remembered less for its battlefield victories than for the damage it caused to the morale of the Army.

Mark L. Kimmey, a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army Reserve, is a systems engineer in civilian life.