NationStates Jolt Archive


US Army's new mission: Picking a new spouse?

Minoriteeburg
04-02-2006, 19:09
Army Teaches Troops How to Pick a Spouse
Saturday February 4, 2006 6:46 AM


By PAULINE JELINEK

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - They are the Pentagon's new ``rules of engagement'' - the diamond ring kind. U.S. Army chaplains are trying to teach troops how to pick the right spouse, through a program called ``How To Avoid Marrying a Jerk.''

The matchmaking advice comes as military family life is being stressed by two tough wars. Defense Department records show more than 56,000 in the Army - active, National Guard and Reserve - have divorced since the campaign in Afghanistan started in 2001.

Officials partly blame long and repeated deployments which started after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and stretched the service thin.

Troops also are coming home with life-altering injuries.

Many come back better people, others worse-off - but either way, very changed from who they were when they wed.

``Being in the military certainly raises the stakes when you choose a mate,'' said Lt. Col. Peter Frederich, head of family issues in the Pentagon's chaplain office.

The ``no jerks'' program is also called ``P.I.C.K. a Partner,'' for Premarital Interpersonal Choices and Knowledge.

It advises the marriage-bound to study a partner's F.A.C.E.S. - family background, attitudes, compatibility, experiences in previous relationships and skills they'd bring to the union.

It teaches the lovestruck to pace themselves with a R.A.M. chart - the Relationship Attachment Model - which basically says don't let your sexual involvement exceed your level of commitment or level of knowledge about the other person.

Maj. John Kegley, a chaplain who teaches the program in Monterey, Calif., throws in the ``no jerk salute'' for fun. One hand at the heart, two-fingers at the brow mean use your heart and brain when choosing.

Though the acronyms and salute make it sound like something the Pentagon would come up with, the program was created by former minister John Van Epp of Ohio, who has a doctorate in psychology and a private counseling practice. He teaches it to Army chaplains, who in turn teach it to troops.

It also is used by social service agencies, prisons, churches and other civilian groups.

Commanders once discouraged troops from starting a family while serving. Thus the old saying: ``If the Army wanted you to have a wife, it would have issued you one.''

Today, the military supports families more than any other employer, Frederich said.

The Bush administration proposes to spend $5.6 billion in the next budget year for quality-of-life services for troops and their families.

That includes help with child care, education, spouse job hunting, legal assistance, commissaries, relocation counseling - programs on every family issue imaginable - to promote stability, and thus troop readiness.

Such support notwithstanding, ``not everybody is cut out'' to marry into the military, said Army spokeswoman Martha Rudd.

Some 740,000 people - or a little more than half of all troops in the active-duty armed forces - are married. Of those, some 96,000 had spouses also in uniform in the 2004 budget year, according to Pentagon figures.

The Army hopes the ``no jerks'' program will help couples decide if they are ready for a long-term commitment and can cope with the unique stresses of military life.

``Settings like military bases are incubators,'' said Van Epp, of Medina, Ohio. ``They try to hatch ... relationships extremely fast,'' leading to higher divorce rates and more domestic violence.

The program teaches troops not to cave in to the pressure of a ticking clock - like rushing to marry before shipping out for a deployment, or too soon after homecoming.

Last month, Van Epp sent 200 program workbooks to troops in Iraq.

So i guess it's good that go'vt money is going to teach soliders, and their partners how to love???????

does anyone else find this really strange??
The Reborn USA
04-02-2006, 19:15
do I find it starange that people that have observed and participated in the horrors of war are being helped so they can live normal lives?

no
Grand Maritoll
04-02-2006, 19:19
It is really very fascinating and interesting. Is it strange? Somewhat. Should it be stopped? No.
Minoriteeburg
04-02-2006, 19:19
I don't believe it should be stopped either it's just odd to see this coming from the pentagon.
The Reborn USA
04-02-2006, 19:22
I don't believe it should be stopped either it's just odd to see this coming from the pentagon.

the pentagon tells soldiers to buckle up, use snow tires etc. because they care about the avreage GI this is just another facet of this
DubyaGoat
04-02-2006, 19:30
I think that's great, and Long, long overdue.

The military has long had a very high divorce rate, it has aslo (more recently) become an organization with over 50% of it's people being married, and I think everything they can do to promote long term happy marriages is fantastic.

I wish them the best of luck with it. Perhaps in a few years we'll all be able to see the results of such a large scale program. I'd bet that there is something to be said about hard pre-marriage counseling effectiveness, but I'm simply guessing at this point. We'll see.
The Reborn USA
04-02-2006, 19:36
I wish them the best of luck with it. Perhaps in a few years we'll all be able to see the results of such a large scale program. I'd bet that there is something to be said about hard pre-marriage counseling effectiveness, but I'm simply guessing at this point. We'll see.

it does. only a little more than 30% of marriages with counseling end in divorce.
Marxist Marauders
04-02-2006, 19:47
The Bush administration proposes to spend $5.6 billion in the next budget year for quality-of-life services for troops and their families.

That includes help with child care, education, spouse job hunting, legal assistance, commissaries, relocation counseling - programs on every family issue imaginable - to promote stability, and thus troop readiness.



Now this is what I find strange, the administration understands that families need this kind of support yet it is not extended to the general US population. Maybe if the poor recieved the support that the military is/was recieving then not only would poverty would be reduced but also crime, violent and other sundery problems. So it is not that the administration does not understand certain inter-related relationships Hmmm..... replace troop readiness with worker readiness.:headbang: :headbang:
Minoriteeburg
04-02-2006, 19:47
Now this is what I find strange, the administration understands that families need this kind of support yet it is not extended to the general US population. Maybe if the poor recieved the support that the military is/was recieving then not only would poverty would be reduced but also crime, violent and other sundery problems. So it is not that the administration does not understand certain inter-related relationships Hmmm..... replace troop readiness with worker readiness.:headbang: :headbang:


The General US Population aren't over in irao and other countries getting their asses blown off, but they should get it too. a huge program like this will help cut at least some of the 50% divorce rate.
The Reborn USA
04-02-2006, 19:50
The General US Population aren't over in irao and other countries getting their asses blown off, but they should get it too. a huge program like this will help cut at least some of the 50% divorce rate.

my feelings exactly, but if Bush tried to do that, liberals would swarm him over it.
Fass
04-02-2006, 19:56
my feelings exactly, but if Bush tried to do that, liberals would swarm him over it.

Because, you know, a Republican nanny state is better.
DubyaGoat
04-02-2006, 20:02
Because, you know, a Republican nanny state is better.


A 'nanny' state? You mean, like one that provides free day-care, health care, housing and food?
Minoriteeburg
04-02-2006, 20:03
A 'nanny' state? You mean, like one that provides free day-care, health care, housing and food?


i could go for some free health care seeing that i dont have any now
Fass
04-02-2006, 20:06
A 'nanny' state? You mean, like one that provides free day-care, health care, housing and food?

Not completely, but in this case one that takes it upon itself to make your marriage work. Republicans usually are supposed to not like nanny-statism, but I guess it's only bad when it's leftist.
Domici
04-02-2006, 23:08
do I find it starange that people that have observed and participated in the horrors of war are being helped so they can live normal lives?

no

I do find it strange that an organization that can't make decent choices or proper (troop level) commitments are now taking it upon themselves to teach other people how to make life-changing descisions and commitments.

Especially since this is probably just a religious program in disguise.
Eutrusca
04-02-2006, 23:11
So i guess it's good that go'vt money is going to teach soliders, and their partners how to love???????

does anyone else find this really strange??
Not at all. Military life places incredible amounts of stress on marraiges. It's good to know that the services are making an effort to help.
Harlesburg
04-02-2006, 23:14
That plan is dumb.
Can't we just beat them like we used to?
Jewish Media Control
05-02-2006, 00:02
Sounds healthy. Glad to hear about it.
The Cat-Tribe
05-02-2006, 00:06
So i guess it's good that go'vt money is going to teach soliders, and their partners how to love???????

does anyone else find this really strange??

For many reasons -- among them are those listed in the article -- this a good thing and not strange at all.
United Briton
05-02-2006, 00:26
Lol..Now we know the governments priority - making sure the troops are happy instead of making sure the citizens have jobs...But if it'll help us get out of Iraq faster..I see no problem other than what I said above..
Myrmidonisia
05-02-2006, 00:32
Speaking as a former Marine Corps officer, I think this is a great program. I have had to deal with so many Marines that got the Red Cross telegram from their soon-to-be ex-wives. The telegram usually goes "I'm leaving and taking everything you left behind." The stress of a military marriage just isn't for everyone.

There's one thing missing from the Army policy, though. The Commanding Officer should be required to approve each and every marriage for his junior troops. I figure E-4 and above are probably mature enough.
Deep Kimchi
05-02-2006, 00:34
So i guess it's good that go'vt money is going to teach soliders, and their partners how to love???????

does anyone else find this really strange??

Don't you find it strange that it requires more testing to get a driver's license than it does a marriage license?

Don't you find it strange that people are allowed to reproduce and raise children without a license at all?
Sonic The Hedgehogs
05-02-2006, 00:56
Now this is what I find strange, the administration understands that families need this kind of support yet it is not extended to the general US population. Maybe if the poor recieved the support that the military is/was recieving then not only would poverty would be reduced but also crime, violent and other sundery problems. So it is not that the administration does not understand certain inter-related relationships Hmmm..... replace troop readiness with worker readiness.:headbang: :headbang:

The Military is under direct authority of the US Government. Thats why there investing into it. Its a decent idea, if you can keep your Military happy and comfortable while able to actualy deploy them when needed then you can keep the amount of troops you need and actualy have some interest in others to join.

The Public should lead there own lifes, Rise and Fall by there own merrits.