As far as being unfair “if you single with no kids,” as Yournamehere so eloquently put it…I’m at a loss. How is it unfair to people with no kids? Assuming that many soldiers will eventually have children, it’s perfectly fair. That’s like saying it is unfair to undeployed soldiers that soldiers deployed to combat zones get 2 weeks of uncharged leave for R&R. ?? How does that make sense?! If you’re not having a baby, why should you get 3 weeks of uncharged leave? You can have it when you have a baby!

I don’t see an issue here, except keeping troop levels up in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if you read the bill in its entirety, you will learn that the 3 weeks will not be granted to soldiers deployed to combat zones until after their tour there is finished. So we won’t be shorthanding our soldiers in combat.

I’m due with our first in December, and my husband is currently deployed with the 1st cavalry Division. He will not be there for the birth of his baby…he will take his mid-tour R&R as soon as possible afterward, but I will be giving birth alone. I’m prepared to do that, it’s what being a military wife sometimes means - but I certainly think that for our sacrifices, we deserve to have 3 uninterrupted weeks of uncharged leave after he gets home to reintegrate and adjust to our new family of three. (The baby will be about 8 months old by that time.)

Also, please remember that the Family Medical Leave Act (12 weeks unpaid leave for births or to care for a sick, injured, or dying immediate family member without risking losing your job and benefits) that civilians can take advantage of doesn’t apply to soldiers.

Being more family friendly in the military helps increase retention rates in an environment with so many deployments today. If servicemembers deploying feel like their families are not being taken care of by the military, it is harder to get them to reenlist.

Other allied nations militaries offer way better benefits for military families then the US military which should not be the case. I have worked with a variety of allied nations and have been amazed by the benefits they receive compared to the US military such as paternity leave which the US military may now just be getting.

It takes one hell of a lady (or man) — and a strong bunch of kids to grow up as military brats and wives/husbands. That so many over the years have suffered and served says much. They have a tradition unto themselves.

But don’t say the military is “family friendly.” I remember the faint recollection of my TI long, long ago — “If the Air Force wanted you to have a wife, it would have issued you one.” No the term “military” itself is not “family-friendly.” However, the military families are something unto themselves.

Hats off to you military wives and brats who serve to — not seeing your Dads (and Moms) for extended periods.

So what do I think of military leave for “bonding”? I say, “If the military wanted you to have a wife, it would have issued you one.” I only say this in fairness to the single troops who are not being granted this same “benefit” no matter how worthy it is. The choics of family are part of the sacrifices that one makes when one becomes a professional military man. It is a conscious choice — and the military families are a part of the tradition. Should we “bend” the rules to allow the families to be together, “yes.” Should we change the rules to give married folks benefits above those offered single folks, “no.”

Just a grumpy old man…