Follow us on social

Airforce

Air Force spouse: the lines are blurred between family, war, and sanity

Something is driving military men and women to suicide. It's time to take stock of the tempo and deployments and figure out what.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

One night, near the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I received a phone call while attempting to get my fussy eight-month-old to bed. My spouse had been deployed as an Airman for a few months now, and I jumped every time the phone rang in the hopes that it would be him on the other end of the line.

Unfortunately, calls home were few and far between, and this late night call was one I dreaded. When I answered the phone my friend simply asked, “did you hear?” and my heart began to race. Within half an hour, my living room was full of mothers and their young children waiting for news. 

We were experiencing a “blackout” — a pause in communications with our deployed spouses — often used to allow military leadership time to contact the family of a service member who has died or been injured. We sat together well into the night, waiting and worrying and selfishly hoping that our spouse was safe and that some other person would receive the dreaded knock on the door. When the news finally came, we mourned together over the service member who took his own life during the deployment that night.

Throughout my decades of being a military spouse, I’ve lived an iteration of this night again and again. Suicide has become more common than combat related injuries. We’ve said goodbye to more service members than I care to list — good men and women who love this country and are proud of their service. Mourning together has become commonplace. 

Thankfully, today is not a day for mourning. Today is a day to thank our troops for their service. Our thanks need to come with action — our support systems are eroding. We are wrapped up in digital worlds and scream at each other across our divides. The idea that a group of strangers could come together despite political, social, racial, and religious differences, as my military spouse friends have done many times throughout the last 20 years of conflict, is hard to imagine. It’s a radical idea to set aside our differences, but today, on Veterans Day, I am asking you to do just that — to stand together in support of our service members and veterans.

All of our post-9/11 veterans have gone to war, in one way or another. At home or abroad, on ships or in tents, in cubical farms, or on the front lines, they fought a war. Combat has adapted to the digital age, but it is not any less dangerous from behind a computer screen. War simply is different.

When a troop is killed in action or in a training accident, they receive full military honors, a hero’s welcome in their communities, a parade of flags, and grateful Americans. Communities across the United States know the routine, having performed this sacred service for more than 7,057 troops who were killed in action since 9/11.

However, there is no hero’s welcome for the 30,177 service members lost to suicide during that same time period. Their families don’t see parades of flags or Americans lined up to pay their respects. The suicide rate among veterans is outpacing the civilian rate, and one after the other, service members are falling. This year alone, the suicide rate in the military is up 15 percent.

Our service members need you to advocate for them now more than ever. The days of yellow ribbons on trees and cars are long gone, but the effects of these never-ending wars on a generation of Americans persist. Many have grown from young adults into war-weary veterans in an environment of perpetual conflict that is nothing like the battles romanticized in the movies. 

After a particularly challenging deployment to the Middle East, I sat next to my husband in the counselor’s office and held his hand as he bowed his head and whispered that he had no business having PTSD because he “sat behind a computer screen all day” and didn’t physically pull the trigger, drop the bomb, or engage in combat. He had told the medical group on base that he was struggling during his reintegration appointment, and the Airman conducting the interview and the doctor both shrugged off his complaints without offering him resources or intervention. 

He felt he was unworthy of support, and his symptoms were a sign of weakness rather than a trauma response to war. He was a digital participant, an important player in the production, but not the hero on the ground. He compares his experience to watching the “SportsCenter” version of war, following human targets and watching as they are eliminated. For five months, he worked through the night without a day off or time to access mental health support, engaging in mission after mission until the deaths of more than 3,200 people were forever burned into his mind. Yet, because he did not pull the trigger himself, it took more than a year for him to finally walk into that counselors office and three years before being diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

It’s not unheard of for service members to drop their kids off at school and head into work, where they engage with very real combat situations from across the world. And the technology we have today allows them to participate at a much quicker tempo than ever before. If we could complete one mission a day before we can now complete a dozen. We can eliminate targets from thousands of miles away. The separation between the front lines and the homefront is blurred, leaving service members and their families to navigate the effects of war on their own.

Our mental health is an imprecise thing — how service members cope with direct and indirect trauma is different from one person to the next, and one situation to the next. Our response to the invisible wounds our service members are carrying needs to be equally flexible, adaptive, and widely available. These men and women have been asked to sustain a high operations tempo too long, to engage in missions they don’t always believe in, and to do so without enough support while maintaining a healthy home life. This burden has become too much to bear for too many of our troops. 

One more service member lost to suicide is too many. It’s past time to take a closer look at policies around war powers, to ensure decisions are vetted democratically and boost confidence among troops and their families. Military spouses and veterans are coming together across the country with the Secure Families Initiative to advocate for diplomacy and care for our troops. Pentagon funding should be properly allocated toward personal support rather than the purchase of more weapons of war. Without the proper compassion and care, we’ll continue to lose our brothers and sisters in arms. 

We’d all rather celebrate them on Veterans Day rather than mourn them on Memorial Day. 


(Bill Morson/Shutterstock)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.