Family Welfare During the Deployment of Ghana Armed Forces in Peacekeeping Missions: Exploring the Role of “Military Surrogacy”

Abstract

This research focuses on the place of soldiers’ families and family life while on deployment, using the case of Ghana’s regular deployments to international peacekeeping missions. We advance the concept of a “military surrogate” to explain the ways in which military hierarchy temporarily take on family roles when a soldier is deployed. This involves intervening in issues related to military spouses, troublesome children, and resolving financial matters. We argue that filling the role as a “surrogate” family member is used by the command both as a way to support deployed soldiers but also as a way to shape behaviors. This phenomenon demonstrates ways that discipline and conformity to military norms work through families and the openings that are left during deployments. We also highlight the ways this process shapes peer bonding, often building peer-to-peer relationships as an attempt to prevent involvement by senior command in their family affairs.

Deployment preparation generally focuses on military and operational issues, such as training, equipment, threat briefings, logistics, and medical screening. Yet, for soldiers there is another important, and more personal, aspect to deployment planning: preparing their families. In Ghana, soldiers refer to this as “preparing our backs.” If one thinks of the deployment as the forward focus, what soldiers leave behind in terms of home and family is considered their back.

Our research focuses on the place of soldiers’ families and family life while on deployment, using the case of Ghana Armed Forces’ (GAF) regular deployments to international peacekeeping missions. We explore common family related issues that occur within the GAF during deployments and the role of the military hierarchy in family issues. We advance the concept of a “military surrogate” to explain the ways in which military hierarchy temporarily takes on family roles when a soldier is deployed. This involves intervening in issues related to military spouses, troublesome children, and resolving financial matters. We argue that filling the role as a “surrogate” family member is used by the command both as a way to support deployed soldiers, but also as a way to shape behaviors in line with military morals and codes. While the long absences due to deployment can lead to a significant shift in family life, we demonstrate how it also contributes to fundamental shifts in the relationship between soldiers, colleagues, and military leadership. We show the ways that family affairs can serve as an important bonding experience between peers. Yet, between lower ranks and senior hierarchy resolving family issues during deployment often involves attempts to enforce discipline.

This research makes three broad contributions to literature. First, it contributes to literature on the military sociology of families. The study of families is a growing subfield of military sociology, which mirrors increased attention on support for families within many military organizations around the world. Yet, research on military families has been dominated by Western cases, with less attention on Africa (Ajala, 2023; Dwyer & Gbla, 2022; Heinecken & Wilén, 2019; Ledberg & Ruffa, 2020). While many of the overall stresses seen in family separations caused by deployments may be universal, the responses are often linked to the availability of financial resources, military cultures, and depth of experience with deployments. Through the case of Ghana’s deployments on international peacekeeping missions, we explore a military with extensive deployment experience, but in an environment with limited financial resources. We show ways in which “practical norms” have developed around the hierarchy’s response to family issues. Most of the practices relating to families are not official policies, but have rather become the common practice. Generally, they give the command a high degree of influence on family issues and aim to shape soldiers’ behavior.

Second, the research contributes to understandings of the effects of peacekeeping on contributing countries. In recent decades, peacekeeping has come to depend on troops from the Global South with Africa emerging a top contributor to peace support missions; deploying tens of thousands of troops annually to foreign conflict zones (Fisher & Wilén, 2022; Williams, 2017). Most attention on unintended consequences of these missions have focused on the deployment location (Aning, 2007), with growing awareness of issues such as peacekeeping economies and sexual exploitation (Beber et al., 2019; Henry, 2013; Jennings & Bøas, 2015). However, how peacekeeping experiences affect dynamics on the home front of contributing countries, is an area that has received less attention. This research contributes to this gap and asks: how do regular deployments to peacekeeping arenas alter family dynamics and relations? How do these operations impact relations within the barracks?

Finally, it contributes a perspective of peacekeeping from the contributing countries and their personnel. Peacekeeping is a complex practice involving mandates, funding, logistics, and operations, that are coordinated across multiple international organizations and often dozens of individual countries (Karlsrud, 2015). Its aims are ambitious; working to not only end a conflict, but often attempting to support democratic elections, security sector reforms, and other development related efforts. Yet, in these grand missions, the effects on the individuals at the frontlines have often been missing in academic literature and excluded from official documentations of the missions (Albrecht, 2022; Dwyer, 2015). We draw attention and give weight to the personal challenges of peacekeeping for those deployed as well as their communities.

This article starts with an overview of research on family related stresses seen around deployments. It then moves onto the methods of our research, followed by an explanation of the experience of deployments within the GAF. Drawing on interviews, we then discuss how deploying soldiers in GAF commonly try to prepare their families for their deployment. Despite preparation, occasions can arise within families that require attention that cannot be dealt with when a soldier is away. In these scenarios the military hierarchy acts as a temporary family member, often making important family decisions for a deployed soldier. We explain this process as a “military surrogate.” Following our explanation of the military surrogate concept, we then show how it operates in practice, including the ways avoiding the military surrogate shapes peer bonds. The article concludes by situating the practices of the military surrogate in the context of financial constraints as well as the history of the organization and its cultural norms.

Literature on Deployments and Family Dynamics

Militaries can be considered “greedy institutions” due to the demands they place on servicemembers (Segal, 1986). These demands often go beyond traditional jobs and can require members to work extended/irregular hours, live in military housing, regularly relocate, deploy for long periods, conform to behavioral norms, adhere to grooming/dress codes, and risk injury and death in combat. These work-related requirements reach beyond just the servicemember and can have significant effects on the family members of military personnel.

Families are often viewed in a contradictory way by military institutions, especially in relation to deployments. On the one hand, families serve as a motivating factor. Soldiers may be motivated by a desire to protect family from external threats or resolve conflict in hopes for a more peaceful world for those they care most about. However, family matters can also distract soldiers while on missions and place pressure on families. Periods where soldiers are deployed reshape daily life for families as spouses, children, or other extended family members (e.g., aging parents), must adjust to their absence and take on some of their roles. It often leads to increased stress levels for soldiers and families alike due to the uncertainty and danger associated with deployments to conflict zones.

The wide range of effects on the families during deployments can be understood through a family system framework which looks at the family as a system of interconnected and interdependent individuals (Chandra, 2016). From this perspective, family members have an ongoing and mutual impact on each other, thus individual members should be viewed in the context of this family system (Paley et al., 2013). The interdependent relationships within families mean that its members are “exerting a continuous and reciprocal influence on one another” (Cox & Paley, 1997, p. 246). As such, stressors that affect one family member are likely to impact on other individual family members and the broader family dynamics. Within this understanding of the family as a system, the deployment of one family member can be expected to have a ripple effect across other members.

The burden placed on families during deployments has taken on increased academic and policy interest in recent decades due to the large-scale deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan (De Angelis et al., 2018). These studies have identified a range of potential negative impacts on children of deployed parents, which can vary based on age range. For young children, separation from a parent as a result of deployments can lead to intense emotional displays and difficulty in regulating behaviors (Barker & Berry, 2009; Stepka & Callahan, 2016). School aged children and adolescents of deployed parents have shown increased mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression, increased behavioral issues, and problems at school (Aranda et al., 2011; Chandra, 2016; Flake et al., 2009). These patterns have often been explained using attachment theory, which highlights the importance of secure and dependable attachments to parent figures, especially at an early stage of development (Paley et al., 2013). Consistency in these parent-child relationships is an important component in socio-emotional development (Stepka & Callahan, 2016). A lack of attachment or disruption of this relationship, for example from a long-term absence, can have impact on children’s emotions and behaviors as well as effects on issues, such as the development of inter-personal relationships. Stresses for children can also arise from changes to household daily routines and shifting roles at home, including new responsibility for adolescents (Huebner et al., 2007).

Just as children may feel stressed by the change in household routines due to deployment, so too do many spouses. The spouse who remains at home often must take on increased family responsibilities, which can be overwhelming for some. The departure can also leave individuals feeling lonely and worried about the safety of their spouse (Barker & Berry, 2009). Studies have found higher rates of depression among military wives when a husband is deployed, with rates increasing in relation to the length of deployment (Mansfield et al., 2010). Marriages can also be strained through separation on deployments. As Paley et al. (2013, p. 250) explain some couples must manage feelings of loneliness, resentment, and distrust, all while having limited means of communication with their spouse during the deployment. Examined through family system theory, stresses in individual parents, spouses and children are interconnected and can be reinforcing. Added family responsibilities, stress and/or mental health struggles in a parent due to deployments can alter parenting styles and shift parent/child relationships. For some children this may be distressing, contributing to behavioral changes, which then further challenges parents (Paley et al., 2013).

The challenges to families during military deployments are well-documented, but negative effects are not inevitable. Research has also highlighted resilience among military families and explored a range of support mechanisms aimed at helping families adapt to absences from deployments as well as the return of their deployed family member (DiNallo et al., 2016; Hosek et al., 2006).

Growing attention to family dynamics and deployments has led to a wide range of government-funded research, family readiness programs and resources widely available in many Western militaries (DiNallo et al., 2016). We did not find such resources were a regular part of the deployment cycle in Ghana. Still, our research found many of the same family challenges exist in Ghana as have been identified elsewhere. As later sections will expand on, rather than relying on official family support programs or mental health professionals, the GAF leadership often became personally involved in some of the family related stresses of their deployed subordinates. We will explain how their approach to family stress is a combination of financial constraints, military history, and military cultural norms.

Research Methods

This article draws on 18 in-depth interviews conducted with members of the GAF who have been in positions to make decisions about the family affairs of soldiers while on deployment. They took place in and around Accra, Ghana in 2022. The interviews are supplemented by extensive previous research by both authors related to the military in Ghana and the broader West Africa sub-region.

As will be elaborated on, family affairs remain a gray area for militaries. Family issues are often a matter of norms, rather than written or formal policy. Interviews were vital to gaining a deeper understanding of how those types of decisions are made and the forms of interventions used. The interview data revealed that engagements into family affairs of soldiers are not merely individual ad hoc decisions but rather follow a pattern of what can be considered practical norms within the military. This aligns with scholarship on bureaucracies in Africa, which has long highlighted the importance of understanding common informal practices in the functioning of state organizations. This strand of literature, which draws heavily on anthropologies of the state, has called for empirical field research to understand the practical norms that often work alongside or in the absence of official policies (Bierschenk & Olivier de Sardan, 2014; De Herdt & Olivier de Sardan, 2015).

The interviewees involved primarily senior officers, senior NCOs, and others in significant roles related to family support (such as Chaplains). The relatively small sample size relates to the contained number of individuals who are in positions to be involved in actions related to the families of deployed soldiers. In addition, across these interviewees there was consistency in their explanation of the ways military leaders addressed common family issues of deployed soldiers. The interviews were semi-structured and included questions related to common family stresses before, during, and after deployments and the role the command played in preparing families and responding to any unexpected issues. The interviewees generally appeared comfortable with the conversations, often giving detailed answers, stories, and opinions. The research permission from Defense Intelligence and Military High Command at the General Headquarters meant interviewees knew the command approved of them discussing their views with researchers. Many senior officers displayed pride in their service and in the GAF as an institution, which could lead them to be reluctant to present a negative view of the organization to outsiders. However, we did not find this to be a pattern. Interviewees did not only share positive experiences or viewpoints. One of the researchers is from the country, which may have made the interviewees more at ease to discuss challenges, such as economic constraints, knowing that the researcher would likely have familiarity of the context. As will be highlighted in later sections, many described periods of family stresses and frustrations—both from their own experience and from those they have worked with. Some felt strongly that the command should have more structured approaches to well-being and mental health within the military.

In the GAF, like in most militaries, those in authority positions worked their way up the hierarchy. Therefore, the interviewees that spoke about the role the hierarchy takes toward family issues of deployed soldiers had also been deployed soldiers themselves. Collectively, the interviewees have extensive deployment experience, with an average of 22 years in service and eight deployments. The most experienced had done 15 peacekeeping tours across 30 years in service. As such, while questions were largely aimed at their role as leaders, the interviewees also spoke of their own experiences and examples from their wide range of colleagues and personal networks, alongside their authoritative roles with subordinates. Most of the interviewees were men, reflecting the GAF as a male dominated domain, especially at the senior levels. ¹ In subsequent sections we highlight where we anticipate variations in patterns of family engagements by the command based on the gender of the soldier.

Gaining research approval from the GAF Military High Command was a drawn-out process and eventually permission was granted to speak with uniformed personnel in key positions about issues related to family matters and deployments. Our challenges in gaining access are part of a broader trend within the study of African armed forces, which are often restrictive about research (Damman & Day, 2024). Based on the permissions we were granted, the perspective presented is from within the GAF. A further understanding of family issues could benefit from engagement with civilian family members who are often on the receiving end of military engagement in family affairs. This viewpoint would be valuable in providing unintended consequences of the military surrogate on family dynamics in the longer term and different effects in many have on various family members.

Ghana’s Peacekeeping Experience

The GAF is the most experienced peacekeeping contributor in West Africa and among the most experienced globally. Since their first peacekeeping deployment to the UN Operation in Congo (ONUC), Ghana has participated in over thirty UN missions (Aning & Aubyn, 2013). The country has also been heavily involved in regional peacekeeping through the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS; Salihu & Aning, 2023). As of December 2024, Ghana was the 6th largest troop contributor to UN peacekeeping missions (United Nations Peacekeeping, 2024).

Like many peacekeeping contributing countries, there are multiple motivations behind Ghana’s decision to deploy troops on peacekeeping. In addition to the broader aims of peace and security as espoused by the UN, Ghana has an interest in avoiding spillover from conflicts in the West Africa sub-region, which could jeopardize its own security (Aning & Aubyn, 2013). Peacekeeping has also helped build the capacity of the GAF, through increased access to training initiatives as well as operational experience in a wide range of environments (Agyekum, 2020). In addition, there are financial motivations for contributing. The UN reimburses countries for their troops at a global rate (US$1,428 per soldier per month). This allows for troops to take home more pay during peacekeeping deployments and can lead to a “profit” for some lower-income countries (Coleman & Nyblade, 2018). In Ghana, military personnel consistently highlighted peacekeeping as an opportunity to gain extra “coins,” despite the stresses associated with these deployments. ² In addition, the government of Ghana uses surpluses made from peacekeeping to supplement military spending, purchase aircrafts and military equipment (Aning, 2007; Aning & Aubyn, 2013).

The motivations for contributions to peacekeeping can also be political, both in an international realm as well as domestically. As Aning and Aubyn (2013, p. 274) note, Ghana’s consistent contribution to international peacekeeping “serves as one of the opportunities through which Ghana can demonstrate its influence in world affairs and enhance its image and prestige in the international system.” It has also been “instrumentalised” by Ghanaian political leaders to divert attention from domestic politics and distract the military from political engagement (Agyekum, 2020; Dwyer, 2017; Olonisakin, 1997).

The GAF command expects its soldiers to be deployed at least once in their careers, which has resulted in a carefully crafted rotational system of deployments (Agyekum, 2020). The structured way of deploying soldiers, the Ghanaian military argues, prevents envy as everyone has the opportunity to go on a mission, while fostering cohesion within the force and between units as personnel from various units from across the country get to serve and work together during the deployment. ³ Due to these processes, the vast majority of military personnel who have served for several years have been deployed on peacekeeping.

Family Preparation for Deployment

In the GAF, the command organizes extensive training and preparation for soldiers prior to deploying on peacekeeping missions, yet families are not part of this preparation. Unlike militaries in Western contexts, there is no routine family resilience training provided by the GAF. Instead, it is up to each deploying personnel to prepare their “backs,” leading to variations in approaches. The interviewees explained that despite the lack of formal guidance about family preparation, there were some informal expectations in place related to family welfare. For example, it was understood that soldiers should leave adequate funds for their family and have measures in place to assist in the event of ill health. These expectations relate to the broader professional identity of the military, in which being a member of the organization also involves acting responsibly within your family and community.

The realm of family preparation is based on informal advice and shared experiences. Interviewees explained that when soldiers deploy for the first time, they often seek out guidance from mentors and colleagues who have previously deployed. For those deploying again, they learn from past experiences and adapted their strategies in subsequent deployments. In speaking with the interviewees about how they prepare their families, their actions fell into three broad categories: material needs, practicalities, and emotional support.

Providing for the material needs of families while deployed is the most formalized of the three areas of support that soldiers discussed. The military command has processes in place that allows a soldier to give permission to a spouse or family member to collect a soldier’s salary in their absence. Many others spoke about writing out blank checks for their wife, both to use for regular expenses as well as ‘unexpected costs and emergencies.’ ⁴ Still others noted that the issue of finances while on deployment has become increasingly easier in recent years with the advancement of digital money transfers. ⁵ While nearly all soldiers discussed the need to provide financial support to families during deployment, the lack of oversight they had over family expenditure was a source of stress. Many spoke about concerns of their spouse overspending, unnecessary expenditure on needless items, or falling victim to financial scams. Financial issues around deployment also accentuated other family divides, such as the need of some soldiers to provide adequate funds for their out of wedlock children, and concerns around extramarital partners making financial requests during deployment.

The second category of family preparation involved addressing the practicalities of family life while they were away. Some soldiers spoke of temporarily relocating their extended family members to their home to assist with daily activities in their absence. This was especially the case for female soldiers, who often brought in a nanny, their mother or sister to live with their family during deployment to fill the more maternal roles as well as assist in household activities.

Finally, soldiers spoke of the need to mentally prepare their families. As one interviewee explained,

I try to give them [his family] a prep mindset. That is how I help them get used to the idea that they are about to lose me for a long time. At the same time, I try to reassure them that I will come back safely. ⁶

This mental preparation was also linked to financial and practical preparation. For instance, soldiers walked their family through support that was available such as their ability to access the military hospital if needed, or which colleague to contact in an emergency.

The Role of the Military Surrogate

When soldiers are in Ghana, their family affairs are generally seen as their own personal matters. However, once deployed the command often takes an active interest in a soldiers’ family affairs, if there are perceived problems that he or she cannot address, while abroad. In this way, the hierarchy acts as a military surrogate.

We use the term military surrogate, not in the literal sense of surrogacy, but rather to explain the process in which military leadership takes on the role of a family elder while a soldier is away. ⁷ It is not an official policy of the armed forces, but can rather be seen as a practiced norm in the way senior leadership respond to family issues of a deployed soldier in Ghana. The concept of the military surrogate helps explain how aspects of military discipline can be channeled through families and the challenges that occur during deployments.

Our concept of the military surrogate includes three main characteristics. First, the role is temporary and comes into effect in moments of family turmoil. The military surrogate role is not one where senior officers become a member of a family in the long term but rather relates to the specific deployment period. Senior leadership takes on this temporary role when there are hardships in the family that are difficult to resolve while the soldier is deployed. As the below examples will demonstrate, this often relates to financial issues, marital problems, or concerns about children. The military surrogate often makes important family-related decisions at moments of difficulty.

A second characteristic of the military surrogate is that it is a gendered role that replicates a traditional male head of household role. By intervening in times of turmoil, the military surrogate focuses on problem solving, rather than a carer or comforter. In particular, the military surrogate often intervenes to fill traditional father roles of discipline and financial caretaker. More traditionally female roles, including daily household issues, care/comforting of children or engagements between women in the barracks are relegated to wives or the magajias, ⁸ as further elaborated on in later sections.

Finally, the military surrogate is a hierarchical function. It is not a friend or colleague helping out; it is a decision taken by more senior members in an organization where hierarchy is central to the operation of the organization as well as the lives of the service members. As such, it makes it difficult for a soldier to resist this surrogacy process, not only because they are deployed on a mission but also because soldiers are expected to follow the orders of those higher in the chain of command. The military surrogacy is operationalised by individuals in leadership roles including Line Commanders, Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM), (the unit) Adjutant, Officer Commanding (OC), and Commanding Officer (CO). In other words, the military surrogate is an individual in a senior role, not only a superior to the soldier. This is significant because it means that the family issues of a soldier have made it up the chain of command and are considered important by senior leadership. As will be further expanded on, having ones’ family affairs raised to senior levels is generally not a comfortable position for soldiers to be in.

The ability of the military to act as a surrogate is linked to a high number of deploying soldiers and their families living on bases. The GAF aspires to house all its soldiers in barracks. This ties into the characteristic of a greedy institution (Segal, 1986) as through this avenue, the Ghanaian military always has access to its personnel. However, accommodation shortages mean not all military personnel live on bases and some must rent outside the barracks. In Ghana, like in most countries in the region, base accommodation is viewed as an important perk of a job in the military. While base accommodations are typically basic, they provide an opportunity to save money that would otherwise go toward rent or upkeep of a house. Base accommodations are also viewed by many as convenient given they often limit the work commute and many bases have facilities like schools, churches, mosques or medical clinics within them. The large number of soldiers who live on bases gives the command a much higher degree of oversight on family issues than in an environment where military personnel are dispersed across private accommodations. Military bases in Ghana are generally very close-knit communities, where families live in close proximity to each other and many send their children to the same schools or attend religious services together. In this type of environment, information about family struggles often reaches senior officers, both through friendships and rumors. A more routine process for the sharing of family related information is through the “magajia.” As the penultimate section will expand on, the magajia is a quasi-formal role as leader of NCOs wives. The woman appointed as magajia addresses issues or disagreement on base that effect wives. Some wives would likely approach the magajias for assistance with family-related matters while their husband is deployed. Yet, the magajia’s authority is limited and she cannot “order” individuals to make changes in the way that military commanders can. Still, the magajia would engage closely with military leadership at the unit level and is another avenue for how military authorities are made aware of family issues on base.

Interventions into soldiers’ family affairs through a military surrogate are not applied equally across all sectors of the armed forces. Gender and rank are two factors that affect the process. The temporary father figure that the military command fulfills means that the military surrogate is primarily focused on the families of men who are deployed. Ghana has increased the number of women in the military in recent decades but at the time of writing only 15% of those deploying on peacekeeping were female (Prah, 2022). For women in partnerships, their husbands or fathers of their children were generally still at home to fill the traditional male role. In addition, female soldiers often invited their mothers or other female family members to live in their homes to fill the maternal/caring roles while they were away. Rank is another factor that appears to effect the command’s decision to intervene in family affairs. Generally, senior leadership was more likely to take actions in the affairs of other ranks than in officers. This follows the general hierarchical structure, in which lower ranks experience more oversight and officers are viewed more as leaders.

While the military surrogacy is focused on dynamics within one family, we argue that the motivation for such interventions is linked to desire for harmony on bases and operational effectiveness of deployed units. In this sense, family engagement is viewed as contributing to the effectiveness of the military. This does not suggest that the leadership that takes on the surrogate role is uncaring of the family they are engaged with, but still the justification was usually explained as part of a greater good. For example, undisciplined adolescents were viewed as a source of instability for those living on base. Or a soldier distracted by unresolved family issues may make mistakes on mission that could jeopardize safety or effectiveness. Therefore, assisting with resolving family matters, which would normally be private, become deemed as a matter of wider benefit while on deployment. Still, as the following section will highlight, attempts to address the greater good may come at the expense of individuals whose private affairs are made public and intervened in through hierarchical power structures.

In interviews with military leaders about their role in family affairs, they suggested that it also aimed to serve as a form of deterrence. Our interlocutors argued that soldiers wanted to avoid having the hierarchy serve as a military surrogate in their families while deployed. They explained that it was uncomfortable to have one’s private family affairs open to their superior’s scrutiny. In cases where the military surrogate intervened over financial issues in a family, the soldier could be viewed as irresponsible, which could have negative career ramifications. For instance, one officer explained that at times deployed soldiers have written checks in advance for their family to cash for their upkeep, only to have those consistently bounce for lack of funds. He noted that ‘upon deployment, he will have to appear for an interview with the CO to answer questions about why he was issuing cheques that would bounce and not taking care of his family.’ ⁹ Another officer bluntly stated ‘if you cannot manage your wife and house, you cannot manage a Company.’ ¹⁰ The interviewees explained that deployed soldiers were motivated to avoid the military surrogate situation, both for its potential career effects and also because it could be socially uncomfortable. They felt that the “threat” of the military surrogate led many soldiers to take the family preparation process more seriously and drove some to set up alternative contingency plans through colleagues, as expanded on in a later section.

The Military Surrogate in Action

While interviewed soldiers spoke about the importance of family preparation when deploying, family issues still often arose while soldiers were away. In some cases, problems were directly related to soldiers failing to put measures in place for their family’s care, while in other instances unexpected issues developed. In our research, we found three common scenarios in which military leadership intervened as a surrogate while soldiers were deployed. These include situations in which soldiers did not leave adequate funds for their family, scenarios of marital issues, and cases of wayward children. These issues all deal with personal matters that often sit at the heart of family dynamics, such as finance, parenting, and fidelity. An exploration of these scenarios helps explain the influence that military surrogacy can have within families as well in shaping dynamics within the armed forces more broadly.

As the examples below highlight, the military surrogate is ultimately a problem-solving role in which military command intervenes in a soldier’s home affairs to address a challenging issue that the deployed servicemember cannot address due to their absence. Even though many GAF personnel now have phones while on mission, their use of it is limited by aspects such as shift work requirements and signal access. Deployed soldiers are not able to fully resolve family matters over the phone. In some cases, the easier access to mobile communication can even further exacerbate family tensions during deployment through the rapid spread of rumors (Dwyer & Gbla, 2022).

There are also more “neutral” scenarios such as death and severe ill health within a family that commanders regularly deal with. These issues are no less important but are more routinized and less “invasive.” They are often addressed in more formalized codes of practice and will not be discussed in detail here.

The first common area in which the military institution filled the surrogate role is around financial matters. During deployment to the peacekeeping arena, soldiers are expected to continue to cater for the needs of their families in their absence. Military commanders expect soldiers to leave sufficient finances for their families’ upkeep. However, these expectations are not always fulfilled. Families of those that were not left sufficient funds will often go directly to senior leadership within the armed forces with a request that the institution assist them. In instances where soldiers have left for deployments without providing for the upkeep of his or her family, senior commanders have a wide range of instruments at their disposal to play the surrogate role. They can directly apply for a loan in the name of the soldier, through the command welfare fund. ¹¹ The soldier will then be expected to repay this loan upon return home. Alternatively, the CO can send orders to the pay office to make monthly allotments from the soldier’s salary to his or her family. Another option involves taking an advance from the peacekeeping pay (which would normally be paid out after return from deployment) and provide this to the family. A soldier does not have to consent to these deductions or loans, signaling the strong authority that the command can exert in the family financial affairs. Attempting to resist such command orders around finances could result in accusations of disobedience and negatively affect career prospects.

While poor financial planning is often viewed as the fault of a soldier, there are other intimate family issues where the command views soldiers as a potential “victim.” These scenarios often involve suspected infidelity by a spouse of a deployed soldier. Overall, senior military leadership explained that they were reluctant to get involved in marital disagreements. As one former RSM explained: “You took your wife from a family so contact them to help solve your marital issues. . . . I will not recommend that the soldier involves the military to solve such issues.” ¹² However, senior leadership also noted that rumors of infidelity while on deployment had a significantly negative effect on deployed soldiers. Their absence meant they were unable to address it. Concerns over infidelity led soldiers on deployment to be angry, distracted, and unmotivated. The importance of working as a unit while on deployment meant that these personal issues could have wider effects, including jeopardizing goals or safety on the mission.

These potential wider ramifications often led the command to take on the surrogate role in suspected cases of infidelity on the home front. Senior officers explained that these situations were difficult because they could simply be false rumors. One noted that if a soldier

has evidence of cheating, he can go to the RSM, the OC or the CO for help. Since he is not on the ground, the leadership could conduct investigations at the Lines or have MP (Military Police) conduct investigations. If it turns out to be really true, the RSM will book the woman or man for an interview. ¹³

Sources gave examples of cases in which the affair involved another member of the military, which are usually dealt with swiftly. A soldier having affairs with another soldier’s spouse can be formally disciplined and sack him from the service.

The topic of infidelity was one of the most animated parts of interviews and the interviewees provided many detailed stories and examples. These were not from their own experiences but rather incidents they were aware of or in the case of officers, involved in resolving. When the command acts as a surrogate to assist a soldier with his fear about the faithfulness of a spouse, it brings highly personal matters into a very public domain. Colleagues follow and watch a soldier’s family members and home and “evidence” is shared up the chain of command as decisions are made about how to address suspected cases. The stories are remembered and relayed for years to come. The command hopes this will serve as a deterrent but it raises ethical questions about the way senior male colleagues serve as “judges” in marital matters.

A final area where military command took on the surrogacy role was in situations of behavioral problems of children. When the remaining parent cannot manage the behavior of a child living on base, military leadership will often step in in the absence of the deployed parent. As an NCO explained,

If the kids are younger than 18 years old, the RSM, OC and the CO, will be involved in helping to straighten that kid out. They will invite the kids to talk to them and advise them about their behaviour. ¹⁴

However, if the child is over the age of 18, the response is often more severe, especially in cases where a child of a soldier is breaking the code of conduct on base, such as stealing. In these cases, the MP can be assigned to monitor the child’s movements or potentially detain them in the guard room if a crime is committed. A Warrant Officer explains:

The guardroom is a scary experience for these wards, because it is not a nice place to be. The hope is that after such an experience, the child will change his/her behaviour. We use the guardroom to punish and discipline that child. In the guardroom, the child will have to abide by our rules. We will wake them up early, assign them a portion to weed or make them double (it is a movement between walking and jogging) around the guardroom. ¹⁵

As seen here, the military surrogate in a parenting role generally assumes a traditional masculine role of a disciplinary father figure. The military takes on the role they think the male soldier would normally play had he not been deployed. As the section below expands on, interviewees noted this type of involvement would usually not occur in the case of a deployed female soldier if the child’s father was present. Instead, it would be expected that the father or other male family member would need to be responsible for managing the child’s behavior.

The ways in which the command enforces discipline with the so-called “barracks boys and girls” (Agyekum, 2019, 2023), relates to a wider belief by the military that “it takes a village to raise a child.” This implies that adults within the barracks could correct and discipline other people’s children. While it would be common for an adult to chastise a child on base for misbehaving or advise them to behave differently, the military surrogate role takes this pattern further. Military leaders hold additional authority and would generally be in an intimidating position for children.

In each of these scenarios, commanders see family issues as extending into the military domain. Tensions within families are viewed as an issue for the military command to resolve to maintain peace within the military barracks as well as keep soldiers focused on their work. However, the practical response via the military surrogate to challenges within families is largely delinked from growing research on the stresses of military deployments as explained earlier. For example, the disciplinary approach taken toward children may not consider the psychological stresses that children often experience in separation from parents, which varies by development stages. Similarly, there is the risk that the military surrogate’s role in directly interfering in accusations of infidelity could further tensions and trust issues that research shows can already be exacerbated through periods of spousal separation during the deployment. Therefore, questions can be raised about whether the focus on preserving the military order can come at the expense of individual family members or families as a unit.

Bond Building Through Avoiding the Military Surrogate

As noted above, the military officers explained that many try to avoid the military surrogate scenario as it can be socially uncomfortable and professionally detrimental. While the hierarchical structure of the military makes it difficult to counter the military surrogate once the role has been enacted, soldiers try to avoid drawing attention to their family affairs through networks and friendships. When soldiers deploy, they often ask fellow soldiers who will be remaining in Ghana to help keep an eye on their family’s welfare or assist with specific upcoming tasks. For example, a soldier explained “when you are on the outside, you as a soldier must organise a support system yourself. . .you must ask people you are close with and trust to help out.” He then gave the example of a scenario of a pregnant wife and explained that it would be common to ask a colleague to ‘organise a vehicle to bring her to the hospital, but also to bring her and the child home.’ ¹⁶ Another officer spoke of providing his bank details to a trusted colleague so he could withdraw money on his behalf if instructed while he was deployed. This would allow the deployed soldier more agency while deployed and avoid a scenario where the command could make financial decisions on their behalf through the military surrogate.

While some noted that other family members could also fill these roles, there was strong emphasis on the trust given to fellow soldiers and officers in these significant family events. Another interviewee explained the importance of colleagues in family matters when he noted ‘I also provide them [his immediate family] with the contact numbers of people they can contact in case of emergency. They are mostly serving officers, trusted colleagues.’ ¹⁷ In this way the soldier was suggesting a route that his family could seek assistance; outside the official chain of command.

The high priority given to colleagues, often over other immediate or extended family members, in assisting in family matters when soldiers are away is likely linked to their shared experience with deployments. The military personnel seemed to believe that their colleagues would have a stronger understanding of the pressures and difficulties of being away from families for long periods because most had been through that experience themselves. The close living proximity, especially with those living on base, was also likely a factor in the prioritization of colleagues over extended family members.

Armed forces intentionally aim to build peer boding as a way to develop the cohesion needed to effectively operate as a unit in life threatening situations (Siebold, 2007). These bonds are built through years of living, training, and working together and enhanced through shared uniforms, grooming standards, and behavioral requirements. Strong personal bonds within militaries are often attributed to shared lifestyles that separate them from civilians as well as shared hardship experiences. Yet, family responsibilities should also be factored into this understanding. When soldiers trust their colleagues with their family matters while they are deployed, it can create a close bond and one that is often reciprocated over time, further building connections, and bonds.

The ways in which soldiers often requested other soldiers to assist in family matters during their deployment may also be linked to the command oversight and regulations within the military environment. For example, soldiers often worried about extended family members, neighbors, or other acquaintances, making financial requests to their spouses in their absence. Such requests would be much less likely coming from fellow soldiers, not least because information could be relayed to superiors with disciplinary actions attached. Similarly, failure to assist a fellow soldier’s family when requested would reflect poorly on an individual and potentially jeopardize their military networks or career trajectories as they would be seen as unreliable or unsupportive.

Attempts to avoid the activation of the military surrogate can enhance peer bonding as soldiers build trust through the establishment of informal family support networks. While these are informal and self-organized, they also rely on a form of insurance that comes with their colleagues working in a military environment that includes oversight of actions. The preferences of family members in receiving assistance informally through colleague networks or more formally through senior leaders in the military surrogate role is a topic that could benefit from further research.

Contextualizing the Military Surrogate

When problems arise within families, senior leadership step in as a surrogate family elder, often making decisions about intimate family issues of a deployed soldier. At times this may be with the deployed soldier’s consent, but in other situations it is done independently of the wishes of the soldier. This blurring of professional and family lines in Ghana is likely the result of both financial constraints and the history of the GAF.

Ghana is a lower-middle income country with significant financial constraints on public funds. These economic challenges are a motivation for peacekeeping as reimbursement payments from the UN help supplement the military and provide individuals the chance to earn additional income. The military surrogate role is a cost-effective response in the context of limited other social welfare options within the GAF. For example, there are not formalized family mental health support programs to prepare spouses and distressed children for the added stresses often related to deployments.

The role of the military surrogate can also be understood as part of a longer history of military involvement in the family affairs of its members. The GAF have their roots as a force under colonial rule by Britain until independence in 1957. Under colonial rule the Ghanaian troops were led by mostly British officers (Baynham, 1994) who viewed family issues as vital to maintaining morale, reliability and discipline among the ranks. Families were catered for including with housing, education for children, and medical care. Yet, families were also expected to adhere to rules related to families and personal matters as established by colonial authorities. This could include mandatory medical checks for civilian family members and seeking approval for marriage or divorce (Parsons, 2017; Stapleton, 2021). Despite attempts to control family matters in the barracks, in practice family issues remained difficult to regulate and many practices were informal (Parsons, 2017). Still, as military historians have noted, it created distinct norms related to families on military bases. The current proactive stance of the GAF in family matters can be seen to some level as a continuation of a longer tradition.

In addition, there are specific family-related practices that persist, including the role of the “magajia.” This role dates back to colonial era in which select wives of senior NCOs served as intermediaries between colonial officers and family affairs within military settlements. ¹⁸ Their tasks related specifically to engagement with women and family members of soldiers. For example, magajias reported to the commanding officer and were responsible for inspecting cleanliness of family living quarters, defusing family squabbles, and vetting prospective army wives (Stapleton, 2021, p. 247). Magajias still exist in the GAF and hold a quasi-formal role, in which they are often elected among their peers and can serve as a liason between families and military authority (GAF, 2020). The magajias often work closely with military wives associations, but the role extends beyond these associations, for example, through their frequent direct engagements with military leadership.

As noted above, the military surrogate takes on a more traditionally masculine role, carried out primarily by male military officers. This role is complemented with the magajias, who have a role focused more on civilian wives. The roles of magajias should not be seen as equivalent to military leadership given they are outside the official structure of the armed forces and do not have the same authority to make decisions and enact discipline. Still, the magajias and military surrogate together represent the long history of heavy involvement of military command in the lives of Ghanaian soldiers, as well as in other armed forces with colonial roots. Further, some of the patterns of military engagement with family matters described below relate to broader communal views of parenting that can be seen across Ghanaian society and some also draw on traditional views of gender roles.

Conclusion

This article has explored the intersection of family issues and military deployments through the case of routine deployments on peacekeeping missions within the GAF. The absence of a soldier from home for extended periods create a potential for the senior command to temporarily act as an elder family member when family problems arise. We refer to this as the military surrogate and see this role as a combination of support as well as a form of discipline. It is a gendered role, which reenforces traditional masculine traits of a male family elder and furthers military values within family settings. The concept of the military surrogate helps explain how aspects of military discipline and conformity work through families and the challenges that occur during deployments.

While attention on peer bonding within the military often focuses on shared experiences on the battlefield or military environment, we emphasize the way shared family experiences also build these bonds. The military surrogacy involves dynamics between senior leadership and (usually) rank and file soldiers. However, attempts to avoid such hierarchical engagements can also shape relations between peers as soldiers regularly turned to each other in their plans for preparing their family affairs while away. Yet even these bonds are not devoid of the hierarchy. Some of the decisions to trust military peers over civilian friends or family involved the ways fellow soldiers could more easily be disciplined if they were to mismanage a colleague’s financial requests or act in ways that would be against military codes of conduct.

This research has highlighted wide variations in global practices around family issues and military deployments. Research on Western militaries has shown the ways greater awareness of family stress and mental health around deployments has led to a growth in family resilience training, counseling services and post-deployment support aimed at families. However, this is not the norm in many other parts of the world, especially in contexts of low economic development (Baaz & Verweijen, 2016; Dwyer & Gbla, 2022; Heinecken & Wilén, 2019). The approach of the military surrogate in Ghana relates to a lack resources, a military culture that has long accepted high levels of involvement by the hierarchy into soldiers’ family lives, and more communal parenting practices. The interviewees did not oppose more formalized processes of support for family stress but seemed resigned that financial constraints would limit such approaches in Ghana. Still, if the government was to invest in family resilience programs or professional mental health support it would likely need to work in conjunction with the military surrogate practice given its long history, which may make it difficult to dismantle.

In Ghana military leadership viewed the process of the military surrogate as a way to support families and limit disruptions both on base and on deployment. However, more research is needed on the perspectives of families where this form of intervention occurs to understand the effects on families including unintended consequences. While some family members may welcome the involvement of the military surrogate, it is possible others may find it stressful, intimidating, or shameful. In addition, while the military surrogate role is viewed as a short term “fix” at a period of family turmoil, research focused on the civilian family perspective may provide an understanding of the long-term effects of this approach on family dynamics.

Further research could explore the applicability of the military surrogate in deployment settings in other countries in other African countries or beyond. Since Ghana has long been a regular contributor to peacekeeping missions, its soldiers and leadership alike are likely to be especially attuned to the needs of families and problems that may arise with deployments. Still, there are similarities with colonial military histories and shared cultural/military norms that would make it likely that other regional forces would also take active roles in family affairs during deployments. Like in Ghana, these interventions into family affairs are likely to be shaping dynamics within the ranks, both horizontally across ranks and vertically across the chain of command. In addition to peacekeeping deployments, there has been a growth of internal deployments for counter-insurgency efforts in Africa. Family stresses in these situations are similar, if not heighted by the intensity of many of these conflicts, but it is possible that the demands of such missions leave less room for command attention on families. This is another area that could use further attention to deepen our understanding of deployment effects on military family dynamics and relations between the ranks.