Most therapeutic models are built, one small component at a time. No intervention is ever fully suited to deal with complex human trauma — especially those that happen on the battlefield — and consequently in the home. This is why they used such a small group — they had to test it out in calmer waters first before trying to “take her out to sea” if you will. It is easier to see what may be beneficial in the long run when an approach is used on couples who are less stressed.

This is not even research. It was really just a way to open the door for more conversation about what in the Role-Exit theory would be useful as a small part of an overall program or approach.

So when you want to take a program and try to implement it as something that will be a positive tool for helping families reintegrate, you would need to use a more rounded group of test subjects, not one that did not represent the “whole” picture. I was in three different units for the four deployments we went through, one special operations and two different divisions in two different countries and the one constant was that there were personal issues everywhere and in everyone we had a death in the units….this impacts the families and the soldiers….you can’t negate that factor when dealing with the fallout that everyone deals with….nor can you negate the fact that families and service members across the board deal with reintegration issues 90-180 days AFTER the service member returns, that is why the mental health checkup is 120 days after they return.

Again I stress….it is an evolving program that is 5 years late in it’s development….we are playing catch-up.