Warbrides refers to soldiers marrying local civilian spouses in the country they are serving in, it is such a well known phenomenon there was even legislation which used the term. My maternal grandmother was a WW2 warbride, one of my uncles married a Korean woman during the Korean war too.
But I saw somewhere it mentioned that in Afghanistan and Irag it is almost nonexistent, is this true? Any particular reason why?
There have been a few I believe. I remember one couple made the cover of Time. There will only be a few because the cultural norms in Iraq and Afghanistan tend toward quite aggressively enforced sexual segregation. If the local men can’t socialize with the local women, the chances of foreign soldiers being able to is even less likely.
Hmmm, maybe because they lock up their women and chop the head off anyone who looks at them?
Seriously, the opportunities to meet and flirt with local women are “culturally constrained”. Plus, collaboration or fraternizing with the locals was risky for both the locals and the soldiers. Iran and Afghanistan were essentially guerilla wars after the first few weeks; locals were targetted if they were too friendly, a terror tactic to reduce cooperation. Soldiers alone off base were targets. Alcohol was forbidden by the religion, so typical soldiers’ nightclubs were unlikely, especially ones with “friendly” local women. The extreme religious facade of the guerillas also gave them added motive to attack any friendly women. Add to that, the cultural reluctance to let women do what they want or wander free, and the shortage of women in jobs that allowed them to meet Americans… not likely to happen.
I did read about one couple where the woman was a translator in Baghdad; they were having a lot of trouble getting her into the USA several years ago, IIRC.
Hard to tell what the women look like when they are covered head to toe in robes and veils.
Maybe I underestimated the culture issue 
But on the guerrilla nature of the conflict wasn’t that an issue in Vietnam too?
As I understood it from the news, not in the big cities. People lived their lives relatively free from intimidation by the Cong. Probably this was due to a strong local force with a strong local police presence that kept the insurgency away from Saigon.
Whereas, in the current wars, the Axis of the Willing ran the show, local government was sidelined and impotent; significant ethnic divides and grievances meant there were a lot people willing to aid the other side, and in both cases the original policing force was gone once the American army arrived.
I believe there is a current DoD policy against romantic relationships with locals, which is the most direct reason, although the segregation of troops from locals and cultural mores are also determinant (the latter has been overstated, though, I think – most women in Iraq weren’t culturally constrained to the cartoonish degree discussed in this thread. More in Afghanistan, but there are many that aren’t).
–Cliffy
Cliffy has nailed it. The main reason is that there is strict policy forbidding it. There are plenty of attractive, Western-style, English speaking young women attending Baghdad University. It’s not the culture-gap so much as the regulation. Can’t imagine the culture gap in Baghdad is larger than 1950s Korea.
There are also far more female troops seeving abroad than ever before. Why fraternize with the locals when you can fraternize with them?
My husband is currently in Afghanistan and, despite many trips off the FOB and interactions with locals, he’s never seen an Afghani girl or woman older than say, 7. They haven’t even driven past them. He may be in a more culturally conservative area, but I find it amazing that he hasn’t even seen one.
Some articles that may be of interest:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/10/13/love-and-war.html
I can’t speak for Afghanistan but I did spend time in Iraq and there are a few reasons that "warbrides are not very common.
I don’t remember any particular rules about fraternizing with the locals but I don’t think it would have been very necessary as I think it would take a special kind of idiot to try anything.
Which hints at something else - with today’s all-volunteer military, there are simply fewer single servicemembers. The men and women serving today are older, and more of them have families.
FWIW, we are not allowed to fraternize with them, either.
ETA: Check your PMs.
The majority of soldiers I knew there were either not married or were not married by the time they returned to the states. There are plenty of young single guys over there. Although it being a volunteer army does limit the number of societies dregs who are in so I suppose that could help. I only knew one person who was a go to war or go to jail person and my understanding is that it was generally discouraged.
I had exactly one contact in multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. A post high school girl in Afghanistan bitched us out for scaring off some boys from using part of the garbage dump as a soccer field (and stealing stuff like fuel cans and fire extinguishers off the trucks). She was in pants and baggy shirt and spoke “American” English. We talked a few minutes and the next day I had her meet with a PR officer. She was promptly hired as a translator and later snatched away by a news organization.
Now in Uzbekistan, at K2, it was a different story. Not a war zone but directly supporting it. There were a number of women on post doing food service, laundry, cleaning, clerical work. More than a few were “war children”; a mix of Asian and Russian. Lots of miniskirts, heels, makeup and smiles. I was not personally involved however.
Dude, c’mere.
Have you SEEN American women? :eek: 'Nuff said.
fixed
Marriage has changed a lot since the 1950s. In the 1950s, marriage was often between young men who were often looking for a sweet girl who wants kids and can manage a household. Nowadays, we expect more partnership from our marriages, and men are less likely to be interested in marrying a woman they have not known for that long and do not share many life experiences with.
The timing is also an factor. People got married earlier than then, and they didn’t expect to have a ton of single time in their 20s so it made sense to find a girl, marry her, and move on to the next phase in your life when you get back. These days, people expect to spend time being single (and they probably aren’t counting their deployment) so they aren’t exactly in a rush to settle down as soon as they return. In fact, I bet most members of the military are looking forward to some bachelorhood when they return. Marriage isn’t the next obvious step like it used to be.
Finally, the women are in a different situation. America is becoming less of a promised land of magic riches, and more and more immigrants are interested in staying involved with their home country. Women coming out of a war are looking forward to opportunities to be involved in shaping their nation, and they may be less likely to want to pack up and go. A young Korean woman probably didn’t have a ton of opporutnity ahead of her, a young Iraqi woman- especially an educated- probably does.
Do changes in benefits that are provided to spouses of US soldiers enter into this?
When I was working at a County Veterans Service Office, i was told that the rules had been changed to make it harder for new spouses to receive benefits. Specifically to discourage this kind of warbride marriages, and quickie marriages before deployment.
As I recall it, the story was told about a local boy whose reserve unit was called up for service in the Middle East. He and his long-term girlfriend (dating since early in high school) decided to get married before he went overseas. Then he left, and was killed in action within a few months. When his widow applied for benefits, she was told that she could not get many of them, because they had not been married for at least 6 months. There was a lot of indignation around the office about how ‘unfair’ this policy was in this case.