TWELVE

Building the Framework for Successful Deployment Reunions

ERIN SIMMONS

When I returned from Fallujah, Iraq, in March 2005, my husband did his best to sweep me off my feet. It should have worked. He brought me flowers. He arranged a two-week vacation at an Okinawan resort. He cooked my favorite food. He even kept in touch with my colleagues at the Naval Hospital on my behalf, and had them at the airport to greet me when I returned. It should have worked, but it didn’t, and for a year after the deployment, we fought for happiness and for our marriage in a struggle that is going on in hundreds of thousands of couples throughout the world.

Female Service members currently make up approximately 16% of the total military force (2012 Department of Defense Demographic Report). Even given women’s historically lesser, but growing, role in combat theaters, of the over two million Service members who have deployed to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), over 11% of them are female (as of 2009 data; Mulhull, 2009; Wilmot, 2013). Interestingly, female Service members, particularly enlisted females, have been found to be at higher risk for divorce than males, and are also more likely to be married to another Service member (Karney & Crown, 2007; Street, Bogt, & Dutra, 2009), which means potentially more deployments, more separations, and simply more complications in their relationships. Despite these numbers, relatively little research has been done regarding the marital relationships of female Service members (Wilmot, 2013).

I deployed from Okinawa, Japan, in September 2004, just a month after my husband and I arrived on the island. We had none of our household goods, no established relationships for social support, no knowledge of the island, and no notice that this was going to happen. When we had discussed our plans and expectations for coming to Okinawa, they included frequent travel to exotic countries, sampling Japanese restaurants and theater, and playing the tourist on sightseeing trips around the island. We expected that my husband, a Marine stationed with 3rd Marine Division, would deploy, and we had discussed what I would do while he was gone. We planned for what actions to take if something happened to him, ways to stay in touch and be optimistic even if we couldn’t communicate very often, and which bills were in his name that I would have to manage. We never prepared for me to go to war.

In the single week I had to prepare, I was torn between excitement and anxiety. Like many women early in the “Long War” (referring to the Global War on Terror; Graham & White, 2006), particularly Navy psychologists, I was not trained to be “downrange,” or to be serving in a combat theater in an austere environment. I spent a small fortune on eyeglasses to make sure I could see while in the desert (the Navy performed my PRK surgery the year after I got back). Under my husband’s guidance I invested in t-shirts (“skivvy” shirts), underwear, sports bras, lotion, good socks, lots of baby wipes—comfort items that I felt I needed to keep myself clean and sanitary. Later, I would realize that I did not bring anything to keep myself feeling feminine, and my mother and mother-in-law helped by sending me colored underwear and fragrant body lotion.

My husband shared his wealth of knowledge about living in the field, which helped alleviate my worry about being unprepared, and he flooded me with helpful ideas for staying safe and healthy. We also planned for the eventuality of him deploying while I was still away: who would watch the cats, how could we set up the bill payments automatically, who would check on our apartment. I deployed from Camp Pendleton, California with 1st Medical Battalion, part of what the Marine Corps then called 1st Force Service Support Group (FSSG), and what is now called 1st Marine Logistics Group (MLG). When I left Okinawa on the plane that would take me to California, I realized I couldn’t even imagine it.

Effective preparation for a couple’s reunion has to start before the deployment, with the expectation that the unexpected will occur. Research reviewed in a 2007 Rand study suggests that deployments and military stress do not cause marital stress, but rather exacerbate pre-existing conditions in the marriage or the environment (Karney & Crown, 2007). The authors of this study emphasize the importance of preparation when they refer to researchers who have compared a deployment, in some ways, to the life-altering event of having a child: “those who expect the new child to be stressful do better than the relationships of those who fail to anticipate that their lives will change significantly” (Karney & Crown, 2007, p. 54). To that end, preparation for deployment includes financial, legal, logistical, social, emotional, medical, and in some cases developmental issues. Preparatory discussions should involve the Service member, the spouse, children, and any “supportive adults” (Armstrong, Best, & Domenici, 2006) who will assume responsibility for the family’s affairs during the deployment cycle. Throughout the remainder of this chapter, the deployed partner will be referred to as the Service member, while the partner at home will be called the spouse.

Getting the bills paid is merely the start of financial issues, which include whether or not to deregister or sell a vehicle, whether a spouse will start or stop working, and whether child care is started, stopped, or taken over by the spouse or other family member. Legal powers of attorney must be generated and wills signed. “Family care plans,” or the equivalent, must be filed with a Service member’s unit to ensure that a certain course of action is followed should something happen to the other parent or caregiver. Logistical concerns include care for pets and possessions, the need for storage, the feasibility of the family staying in their location or returning to the location of other family members, as well as what technology will best enable the family to keep in touch. When and how often to communicate can be planned in advance, with the understanding that plans may change depending on circumstances. Maintaining communication with small children who can’t talk on the phone can be particularly challenging, though much alleviated these days with Skype and webcams. A plethora of websites and organizations—USAA, Army and Navy Knowledge Online (AKO and NKO, respectively), the Real Warriors Campaign, Navy and Marine Corps Public Health Center (NMCPHC), to name just a few—now provide deployment checklists to ensure that these issues are addressed, and suggestions for how best to do so.

Socially, there are three main tasks to be accomplished: saying goodbye to family and friends, and creating an “emotional armament” to cope with being away from them (Rabb & Rasmussen, 2013, p. 41); building support for the spouse and family who remain behind; and establishing trust and rapport with the deploying unit. Female friends can be “essential” for the social and mental well-being of female Service members, as female Service members may be isolated on deployment with few female or supportive companions (Courage, 2013, p. 59; Street et al., 2009). As a case in point, during my 2008 deployment to Ramadi, Iraq, I lived and worked in a compound that housed four Marine Corps and Army Commands. I was one of three females, and the only female Officer in the entire compound. I negotiated with the male commanders for shower times for the three of us, when we locked ourselves in the shower trailer, and we put signs up on the bathroom trailer (the “head”) to the remind the men that the trailer was coed.

Family members, who may have traveled with Service members to duty stations far from their home of origin and have limited connections to friends, neighbors, or other families in the unit, may also experience a sense of isolation. This can be especially true for Reserve families, or families new to the military or to the deploying unit, because of lack of knowledge and established social connections that are taken for granted by established personnel (Karney & Crown, 2007; Palmer, 2008; Rabb & Rasmussen, 2013). Family and community support are equally essential when the Service member is in harm’s way, for emotional encouragement, as well as material aid, such as picking up children or helping with financial difficulties (Courage, 2013).

Emotionally, the Service member must balance a myriad of emotions. She might feel excitement for the deployment, sadness at leaving her family, worry for her safety and her family’s well-being, regret at missing part of her children’s development (i.e., “parenting stress”; Palmer, 2008), and concern for a spouse who suddenly has to pick up the slack. A deploying mother must deal with the stress of figuring out how to be a “mother from afar” (Street et al., 2009). Service members must come to terms with the knowledge that they will miss birthdays, weddings, graduations, and other important milestones and life events. Spouses, too, may experience their own mixed emotions, including shock, disbelief, increased emotional distance, anticipatory fear or grief, and anger at those in the unit not deploying (see Palmer, 2008, for a summary of research).

Medical needs must also be evaluated and care established, particularly if the spouse is new to the military and is not familiar with the Military Health System and available resources. Children need to be registered in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS; the military database used for Service members and their dependents to register for healthcare benefits), and their educational and developmental needs planned for. Decisions must be made about how to explain to children of various ages why their mother is going away for an extended period of time. Many websites and organizations also exist to help with this process, including the Courage to Care campaign, Strategic Outreach to Families of All Reservists, Military OneSource, Zero to Three, and Afterdeployment.org. The spouse’s and family’s support of the child and each other, and their confidence in a positive outcome, during the pre-deployment phase not only contributes to the extent of a child’s adjustment during the deployment, but also the quality of the eventual reunion (Palmer, 2008).

By the time many people leave for deployment, they are relieved that the planning and preparation stages are over and they can begin focusing on the work that has taken them from home. Preparation for reunion continues during the deployment as status updates on current events, children, family, pets, finances, and the household become important facets of a couple’s communication. Communication itself, not always readily available when new areas of operation are established, is vital to the eventual reunion, as long as the communication is positive and effective (Karney & Crown, 2007; Palmer, 2008). If phone or Internet connections are unavailable, letters remain a good way to stay emotionally connected with a spouse and children, even if to letters can’t be sent immediately. Events such as birthdays, anniversaries, and meaningful holidays can be important to mark in some way when feasible, depending on the couple. For example, in late 2004, following the successful completion of Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, we were again able to fly the US flag without fear it would be shot down or blown up. We were able to provide flags to be flown for the day, which would then be returned to us to take home, with a certificate of authenticity. I flew a flag for my husband on his thirtieth birthday outside the Fallujah medical center. Though I did not give the flag or certificate to him until I returned three months later, the act of commemorating his birthday in such a way made me feel closer to him. Emotional closeness and maintaining contact is thought to increase the resiliency of the relationship and lead to more successful reunions (see Palmer, 2008, for a summary of research.)

Communication is a double-edged sword, however, particularly as technology has improved. Talking or Skyping every day is now frequently possible, and can be an easy way for couples to stay in touch. However, with more extensive contact come the risks of relationship problems being carried over to deployment, with negative news, problems at home or on deployment, and disappointed expectations becoming the frequent topics of conversation (Street et al., 2009). Such negative interactions and the feelings that accompany them can reflect poor adjustment of the marriage to stress (i.e., the stress of deployment) and can erode the quality and function of the relationship (Gottman & Silver, 1999; Karney & Crown, 2007). It is important for couples to remember that both of them are experiencing hardship, regardless of the length or intensity of the deployment.

During the deployment, specific preparations for homecoming should also be discussed and solidified. These preparations are essential to maximize the chances of a positive reunion experience. Again, these preparations may be financial, logistical, social, emotional, medical, or developmental. First and foremost, the question must be asked: What is expected from each partner? Answers may range from a big party the night of homecoming to seclusion in the home for a week. Does the Service member want to talk about the deployment or not during the first few days? Will children be present to meet the Service member, or will they be at home waiting for her? Realistic expectations can prevent many of the negative events that can accompany the reunion (Armstrong et al., 2006; Karney & Crown, 2007).

The financial situation, including costs of a vacation, party, or a trip to visit extended family, should be discussed. Finances are usually improved by the Hazardous Duty and Family Separation pay gained during combat deployments, and the disposition of this money can be an important issue in the couple’s near future. Changed financial circumstances, such as debt accrued from house or car repairs, or simply extravagant spending—by either partner (another risk of better Internet connectivity)—should not be kept secret. The logistics of plans for travel, vacation, social engagements, and hosting visitors will be affected by this information. These plans can be worked out in advance to minimize the stress during the emotional time of homecoming. While in Ramadi, I was able to completely plan, with my husband’s help, our attendance at my brother’s wedding, a visit with my parents, and a trip to Scotland for us and my husband’s parents, which turned into a successful and rewarding post-deployment vacation.

Social and extended family interaction should be discussed in advance so that both partners are on the same page about how social each partner wants to be after the separation. Friends and family can be contacted prior to the homecoming to explain the plans and to minimize the immediate phone calls asking when the couple is visiting. Most important, the couple’s emotional connection to each other and to their children—positive or negative—will be thrown into high gear, particularly after a first deployment, and even more so when that deployment was unexpected or particularly hazardous. This emotional connection can be volatile at such a time, and the adjustment to being home and being together often takes more time than couples expect (see Armstrong et al., 2006; Moore & Kennedy, 2011). Preparation for immediate plans can prevent conflicts over little things. Preparation for how and what to communicate to children keeps parents working together, rather than being opposed, and also addresses the developmental needs of the children. Advanced warning of changes or problems can prevent disappointment and surprise, which can cause negative feelings within the family at a time they least expect them.

“Prior planning prevents poor performance” is a common expression in military culture, referring to the importance of planning before acting. Prior planning in the case of deployment reunions is the scaffolding that provides structure, direction, and support for the homecoming and continued relationship. Added to this scaffolding are varying degrees of internal and external support structures, as well as “relationship resources,” or beneficial qualities of the relationship itself (Karney & Crown, 2007, p. 22; see also Cigrang et al., 2014; Palmer, 2008). Externally, factors that can bolster incomplete scaffolding, and ultimately reunion success, include social and community supporters of the couple and the individual, family involvement, financial stability, unit support and military programs, and societal appreciation, as well as a rewarding deployment experience. In the absence of some of these factors, a strong scaffolding will likely hold, but may be weakened. A weakened scaffolding will be more dependent on factors internal to the couple, such as quality of communication before the deployment, age and maturity of the couple and each partner, realism of expectations toward each other as well as the deployment and the homecoming, and the relative health of the family unit, including the children (Karney & Crown, 2007; Palmer, 2008). Should internal factors be lacking, external factors can likewise support the weakened structure to some extent. Furthermore, strong planning and consistent work toward the goal of reunion can supplement missing or problematic internal factors. However, a reunion with weakened scaffolding due to any reason is often more difficult and fraught with conflict. Karney and Crown (2007) remark, “Spouses who possess personal strengths and those who live in supportive, resource-rich environments should generally experience more positive outcomes” (p. 18).

Preparation must also contend with external and internal stressors that may impair reunion success. For instance, existing unit or social support may be less effective for male spouses who feel isolated from their civilian male peers and out of place among their fellow spouses, who are usually female. Male spouses may also experience a kind of identity crisis for not adhering to the typical values associated with a male in American society. This crisis may “erode their satisfaction with the relationship” (Karney & Crown, 2007, p. 41) or may cause them to take out negative feelings on servicemember (Wilmot, 2013). In addition, exposure to combat or operational trauma can result in unexpected individual changes to the Service member, which might include physical or psychological injury, and which may affect her ability to function in the relationship or in her daily life without more extensive help from a spouse than either partner planned for. Research has shown that psychological trauma has a strong relationship with poor deployment reunions (Cigrang et al., 2014). The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services also listed in their 2012 report several health concerns that occur at a higher rate in women who have deployed, compared to women who haven’t deployed and to men who have deployed, including sexual assault; migraines; disorders of the back and neck; anxiety, depression, and other mental disorders; upper respiratory illness; and pregnancy and fertility-related conditions, as well as routine medical treatments that may have been deferred during deployment (also see Murdoch, Bradley, Mather, Klein, Turner, & Yano, 2006).

Finally, Karney and Crown (2007) point out that, regardless of the stress of deployment, it is possible that military service in general attracts or promotes certain risk factors in individuals and their relationships, such as youth, younger marriages, proneness to violent behavior, and history of psychiatric disorders or “neurotic behavior” that can negatively impact relationships. These researchers state, “There is no consistent evidence that the normal, expected demands of military service lead to higher rates of marital dissolution in military couples” (p. 66). Therefore, the internal and external factors, both beneficial and risky, including those offered by the individuals themselves, must be addressed in order to successfully navigate the stress caused by deployment. It is important to realize that “addressed” does not necessarily mean “fixed.” It simply means that known and expected problems are much easier to prepare for and cope with than unidentified or denied issues.

In the course of my own life, working as an active duty psychologist, being a deployed wife, and being the wife of a deployed Marine, I have returned time and time again to a set of six “rules” that can guide couples through successful reunions. I began developing these rules after I returned to Okinawa after that first, unexpected deployment in 2004, when I found myself a stranger in my own life. While going through my own adjustment period, I was asked to conduct Return and Reunion briefs to spouses waiting for their Service members to return, as well as to the returning Service members. Some of the rules were developed as I thought about how unprepared and uncertain I was throughout my deployment process, and how difficult my adjustment was when I returned to my husband. Some were developed through listening to other Service members and spouses in crisis, and learning the common threads that ran through their conflicts. Throughout the last decade of working with thousands of military members and their families at war, I continue to reference these rules as a foundation upon which to build successful deployment reunions.

These rules generally focus on strategies that can improve communication and mutual understanding in all relationships, but that reflect particular aspects of relationship functioning that have been shown to affect military marriages in particular. For instance, typical “guidelines for effective communication,” including problem-solving, listening, and compromise, are not always valued in military culture in the same way that they are valued by civilians (Karney & Crown, 2007, p. 29). Furthermore, Karney and Crown point out that female Service members tend to marry later than their civilian counterparts, resulting in “younger” marriages that have fewer resources internal to the marriage to contribute to the relationship scaffolding. In addition, the frequent separations that are “normal” to a military couple, particularly a dual military couple, limit the availability of each partner for productive interactions that bolster the relationship and that counter negative events such as emotional distance or chronic negativity (see Gottman, Swanson, & Swanson, 2002).

Rule 1 is to beware the fairy tale, while Rule 2 is to create only reasonable expectations of each other and of external factors. It is natural for human beings to create expectations of events and people. This practice is what allows us to look forward to things, as well as to prepare for disappointment. However, when our expectations are not accurate, the ways we act, think, and feel after we realize our mistake can be damaging to ourselves and our loved ones (see Armstrong et al., 2006; Military OneSource; Moore & Kennedy, 2011; Real Warriors regarding managing expectations of deployment reunions). The intense feelings associated with a deployment homecoming tend to deepen our emotional attachment to our expectations, whether or not they have a logical basis. For instance, my husband never got me flowers in the beginning of our relationship because he didn’t think I liked them. After I told him I did like flowers, he began buying them for special occasions, including my deployment homecomings. I have to admit I expected the flowers; they were part of my fairy-tale homecoming. If they hadn’t been present—if he didn’t have time, or the store he planned to go to was closed, or if any one of a dozen other events had prevented him from bringing flowers—I would have been disappointed. That disappointment, on top of my sleep deprivation, my desire for a shower after the week-long trip, and my excitement to see him after so long, would have been significantly more damaging than if he had simply not bought me flowers on my birthday. I got lucky there, so to speak, since I did not ask him to bring me flowers, or even suggest that I would like them. Doing so, however, would have ensured that he knew what I wanted, and hopefully would have prevented negative emotions that might have hurt my homecoming. Coming home from his deployments, my husband always asks me to pick him up in his truck, so he can drive it home. Such an easy request, but I may not have thought of it otherwise.

Expectations may be formed about anything: from celebrating special days to getting house repairs done, from child-care practices to managing the finances, and from changing your personal appearance (hair color, new clothes) to homecoming plans. Realistic expectations, however, regardless of the extent of the stress or hardship, can enhance resiliency and relationship health (Karney & Crown, 2007). Moore and Kennedy (2011, p. 10) suggest “practicing what you plan to say and do” prior to the homecoming, in order to minimize the damage of unrealistic expectations. Particularly vulnerable are the aspects of a couple’s life on which they tend to disagree. For instance, compromises in food choices or spending practices that a couple created prior to the deployment may have drifted during the separation. This may have happened without a great deal of conscious thought on the part of either spouse, who may have simply returned to doing what came naturally without periodic reinforcement from his or her partner. It is a safe bet that not all of a couple’s expectations will be met the way they want, as in a fairy-tale reunion, but it is much more likely that things may turn out as expected if these expectations are communicated in advance.

The expression “pissing contest” is typically reserved for men trying to impress each other or other observers with their exploits or skills. Wikipedia defines “pissing contest” as

[a]‌ game in which participants compete to see who can urinate the highest, the farthest, or the most accurately.… Since the 1940s the term has been used as a slang idiomatic phrase describing contests that are “futile or purposeless,” especially if waged in a “conspicuously aggressive manner.”

This never-ending game of trying to outdo a companion using subjectively important but realistically meaningless metrics—by “upping the ante,” as Gottman, a prominent relationship expert, explains (Gottman & Silver, 1999, p. 103); by not accepting a partner’s emotional reality (p. 149); or by trying always to be “right” (p. 150)—is a common but maladaptive occurrence in relationships having difficulties. With difficult and complex experiences such as deployments, this game can become more hurtful and damaging than it might be in other circumstances. Therefore, avoiding the “pissing contest,” or curtailing the urge to claim that one’s deployment experience was worse than his or her spouse’s is Rule 3 of deployment reunions.

Claims or accusatory complaints of hardship can trigger the strong emotions discussed in Rules 1 and 2, such as the desire for things to be “perfect,” disappointment that they aren’t, guilt at not having done everything possible to make them “perfect,” and fear that this failure will cause long-term hurt in the relationship. In addition, other intense emotions may be present, such as relief that the deployment is over, worry about the next deployment, concern about how the homecoming is going, even anger at how well the other partner has done being on his or her own (Armstrong et al., 2006; Bell, Schumm, & Gaskin working with Military OneSource, 2007). Furthermore, women’s combat (or other trauma) experiences are sometimes doubted by employers, family, and even fellow deployers (Wilmot, 2013), which creates residual negative feelings that are easily triggered by a challenge to their personal experience. Finally, either partner may still be emotionally reeling from difficult experiences that he or she lived through during the separation, whether or not the other knows about those experiences. All of these emotions can create “buttons,” or emotional “tripwires” (Goleman, 2009), that can be inadvertently pressed by an unsuspecting partner to create a stormy and unhelpful reaction.

Service members and spouses often claim any number of “proofs” that their experience was worse—because of the danger of being in combat, or because of the worry while staying at home; because of the physical hardship of an austere environment, or because of the logistical challenges of being a single parent. However, these claims usually only serve to stir up emotions that have not yet been communicated, processed, and resolved, which results in hostility, hurt, and/or resentment between spouses. These negative emotions weaken the internal scaffolding of the relationship, and increase the risk that the relationship will fail. It only takes one person to exercise his or her “emotional intelligence” (Goleman, 2009) and stop the “pissing contest” by accepting that his or her partner did indeed have a difficult experience, regardless of how hard his or her own might have been. I recommend to the frustrated partner to literally bite his or her tongue—that’s what worked for me—and remember that there will be a chance to share his or her own trials if he or she exercises patience and acceptance. It may be a challenge, but it is not a competition.

Whether the communication is about difficult deployment experiences or planning a post-deployment vacation, communication only really happens when one says what he or she really wants to say when the other person is listening. This means creating or maintaining a supportive “encouraging… atmosphere” (Gottman & Silver, 1999, p. 245), and avoiding overwhelming or “flooding” (p. 34) the other person. The choice of when and how to say something can be just as important, or more so, than deciding what to say. Rule 4 is to consider the timing of what is going to be said before it is actually said. At least one partner will usually have a lot to say after an extended separation, particularly if the communication on the deployment was erratic, or there were unexpected hardships. Sometimes, people just want to resume what they think of as their “normal lives” as soon as possible. This may involve presenting “honey-do” lists, discussing major changes to the home, or planning tuition costs for going back to school. These types of communications might be initiated by either partner, and are almost always ineffective if presented during the initial homecoming period (see Bell, Schumm, & Gaskin working with Military OneSource, 2007). Equally ineffective are complaints or criticisms (criticisms are rarely beneficial in relationships; Gottman & Silver, 1999, pp. 27–29) made about the spouse or the household at this time. Keep in mind the fatigue, stress, hunger, and joy to be home that are likely present in the Service member, and the fatigue, stress, relief, and excitement that are likely present in the spouse. Notwithstanding other potential factors at play, such as existing relationship problems, external stressors, or negative expectations, these emotions alone tend to prevent people from listening or hearing any complicated thoughts or plans in the moment.

Rule 5 addresses particular questions of the Service member that tend to be dubbed by combat Veterans as the “stupid” or the “dumb” questions (Armstrong et al., 2006, p. 166). Popular media is full of examples and some quite explicit and sometimes humorous portrayals of these questions (for examples, search for “stupid questions” on Military.com). These questions tend to require special consideration of timing and context before being asked. The “stupid questions” often include references to traumatic events, particularly killing other human beings (i.e., “Did you kill anyone?”); events that the Service member feels she should share exclusively with her deployed unit or that won’t be understood by non-deployers (i.e., “What was it like getting blown up all the time?”); or events of which she is not proud or feels guilty (i.e., “Where were you when Sgt. So-and-so got hurt?”). Even saying “Thank you” to a Service member who does not feel like she contributed significantly to the mission could result in an unexpectedly negative response. Other questions may simply not elicit a useful or desired response. For instance, the question, “How was it?” is so general, it may elicit the typical response when asking a preteen how school was (i.e., “Fine”). The question, “Are you glad to be home?” may result in confusion or disappointment when the Service member replies, “No,” or, “I’m not sure yet.” Often, the rewarding experiences of a deployment (e.g., pride, camaraderie, self-confidence; Scurfield & Platoni, 2013) or the complexities involved in coming home result in feelings of regret for being back, instead of the happiness that is expected. These feelings are normal.

Questions that elicit negative memories or emotions, or bland or confusing responses, have the potential to cause significant bad feelings for one or both partners and to disrupt the reunion process. They also increase the emotional or intellectual distance the Service member may already be feeling (Armstrong et al., 2006). It is also important for Service members to realize that spouses may ask or not ask questions out of a desire to be understanding and supportive, but may not know the best time or method for doing this. Talking to “supportive adults” can be extremely valuable for Service members, and helps to alleviate the isolation and adjustment problems that may accompany the homecoming (Armstrong et al, 2006, p. 177; Courage, 2013). While each relationship will have its own rules for openness and disclosure, which ideally should be discussed prior to the homecoming as part of the preparation process, couples are encouraged to use planning and thoughtfulness when discussing difficult or emotional topics and when asking or answering these questions. It is helpful to communicate in advance whether or not questions are expected or desired.

Rule 6 is meant to remind Service members and spouses alike that the family members at home keep the home functioning and the children fed while Service members fight for the right to do both. Sincere thanks and appreciation, in both directions, are appropriate and are usually welcomed (if done with good timing). It can be easy for Service members to feel entitled to this appreciation because of the challenges and hardship of the deployment experience. Society has come full circle from the infamous disdain in which many returning Vietnam Veterans were held when they returned, and our American culture now reinforces the need to recognize the accomplishment, patriotism, and service of men and women in uniform. However, it can be just as easy, and no less valued, for spouses and family members to expect credit for providing emotional and material support for a Service member while running a household in her absence. The thanks that are due, and how those thanks are demonstrated, can be part of the homecoming planning, and should certainly be considered by each partner as they prepare for reunion. Armstrong et al. (2006) point out that communication overall can be improved by simply asking the spouse how their experience was while the Service member was away. These positive additions to the homecoming process reinforce the existing scaffolding, strengthen parts that were weakened by separation and hardship, and can ensure that essential mutual value, respect, and “fondness” (Gottman & Silver, 1999, Chapter 4) remain part of the relationship, even when the inevitable “pissing contests” occur.

After my deployment in 2004–2005, my husband and I created a stronger marriage through communication, understanding, compromise, and, I believe, sheer stubbornness! We were not prepared in advance, and we had only the most rudimentary scaffolding in place in our relationship at a time when it seemed that everything changed at once, from the simple fact of being apart, to having just moved to another country. Our internal and external resources were both weakened, and, though our internal resources proved strong enough to heal the relationship in the long run, the friends made in Okinawa and the counseling sessions we attended at Marine Corps Community Services were needed for external support. My next deployment took place in 2008, and my husband deployed to Afghanistan in 2009 and 2011. Each deployment had its own challenges, for each of us, and I have made many, many more mistakes than I thought I would, being a psychologist and being motivated to maintain my marriage as well as my personal health. I am able to laugh now, when I tell people, “I thought I knew better!” However, I am also able to accept that I didn’t know better, had to bite my tongue, and had to learn. We did not have the same problems after later deployments that we had during and after our first, thanks to the knowledge we gained, and the preparations we learned to make.

My goal with this chapter is to provide knowledge and understanding—an external resource, if you will—that I have gained in my 12 years as a Navy psychologist, my 13 years as a Marine Corps wife, and my experiences on both sides of the deployment cycle. Though this chapter is part of a book geared toward women’s experiences, I hope readers will be able to apply its contents to either spouse or partner, male or female, at any phase of the deployment cycle. I hope also that this chapter provides reinforcement to go find those external resources at times when help is needed. Additional tips and resources are listed in Courage After Fire (Armstrong et al., 2006) and Wheels Down (Moore & Kennedy, 2011), in addition to the websites and organizations listed earlier in this chapter.

Research has still not determined definitively how and why deployments can deteriorate relationships; however, there is widespread agreement that external support, individual risk factors, health and maturity of the relationship, and preparedness to deploy are very important to the process (Cigrang et al., 2014; Karney & Crown, 2007). Though fairy tales are generally unrealistic, planning, scaffolding, understanding, and preparing can make relationship reunions into rewarding, fulfilling, and positive events.

The views expressed in the this chapter are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the U.S. Government.

Armstrong, K., Best, S., & Domenici, P. (2006). Courage After Fire. Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press.

Bell, D. B., Schumm, W. R., & Gaskin, T. A. (2007). Returning to family life after deployment. Military OneSource. Retrieved from http://dhl.dhhq.health.mil/Product/RetrieveFile?prodId=234.

Cigrang, J. A., Talcott, G. W., Tatum, J., Baker, M., Cassidy, D., Sonnek, S., Snyder, D. K., Balderrama-Durbin, C., Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2014). Impact of combat deployment on psychological and relationship health: A longitudinal study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27, 58–65.

Courage, C. (2013). Army National Guard warriors: A part-time job becomes a full-time life. In R. M. Scurfield & K. T. Platoni (Eds.), War trauma and its wake: Expanding the circle of healing (pp. 53–68). New York: Routledge.

Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. (2012) Report. Retrieved from http://dacowits.defense.gov/Portals/48/Documents/Reports/2012/Annual%20Report/dacowits2012report.pdf

Goleman, D. (2009). Emotional intelligence: 10th Anniversary Edition. New York: Bantam.

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Gottman J., Swanson, C., & Swanson, K. (2002). A general systems theory of marriage: Nonlinear difference equation modeling of marital interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(4), 326–340.

Graham, B., & White, J. (2006). Abizaid credited with popularizing the term “Long War.” Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202242.html.

Karney, B. R., & Crown, J. S. (2007). Families under stress: An assessment of data, theory, and research on marriage and divorce in the military. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Moore, B. A., & Kennedy, C. H. (2011). Wheels down: Adjusting to life after deployment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mulhull, E. (2009, October). Women warriors: Supporting she who has “borne the battle.” (Issue Report). Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America: New York.

Murdoch, M., Bradley, A., Mather, S. H., Klein, R. E., Turner, C. L., & Yano, E. M. (2006). Women and war: What physicians should know. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(Suppl 3), S5–S10. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00368.x.

Palmer, C. (2008). A theory of risk and resilience factors in military families. Military Psychology, 20(3), 205–217. doi:10.1080/08995600802118858.

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy). (2012). 2012 Demographics: Profile of the military community (Department of Defense Demographic Report). Retrieved from http://www.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2012_Demographics_Report.pdf.

Rabb, D., & Rasmussen, C. (2013) Citizen/warriors: Challenges facing U.S. Army Reserve soldiers and their families. In R. M. Scurfield & K. T. Platoni (Eds.), War trauma and its wake: Expanding the circle of healing (pp. 31–52). New York: Routledge.

Scurfield, R. M., & Platoni, K. T. (2013). Myths and realities about war, its impact, and healing. In R. M. Scurfield & K. T. Platoni (Eds.), War trauma and its wake: Expanding the circle of healing (pp. 16–27). New York: Routledge.

Street, A. E., Vogt, D., & Dutra, L. (2009). A new generation of women veterans: Stressors faced by women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 685–694.

Wilmot, M. (2013). Women warriors: From making milestones in the military to community reintegration. In R. M. Scurfield & K. T. Platoni (Eds.), War trauma and its wake: Expanding the circle of healing (pp. 69–89). New York: Routledge.