In a way I can see the officers' complaints. My first wife and I were divorced because she just couldn't raise 2 kids by herself while I was running around playing soldier. I asked her why she wanted to split, of course, what she expected marrying a soldier. Her reply was that she expected to marry a husband that was a professional soldier, not a professional soldier that couldn't be a husband. It's hard on dependents. It's darn near impossible on them in combat arms.
Whether the service wants to admit it or not, familial support is part of what keeps a soldier motivated to drive on. No matter how much we train, part of being a human being stays with us. When a man is faced with losing his family or switching careers, I can't fault him for making the family his priority.
On the other hand, no one signs up without knowing what the job is - or, if they did, they're likely idiots who enlisted with dreams of endless rows of chest cabbage. That's not a suitable outlook for what we do. God, country, family.
I try and explain to my civilian friends that a soldier's sacrifice is WAY more than the chance of death or injury. Family issues, mental health issues (separation anxiety, PTSD, substance abuse) and manifested physical issues take more of a toll on our service men and women than service related injury and mortality, but I always get that "huh?" blank stare. They can't understand it because they didn't serve.
The balance is always going to be a constant fight. But 1 for 3? That's ridiculous. I'd say 1 for 1.5 would be good (hey, works for the Navy).
What these officers are forgetting is that removing themselves for personal desire doesn't just affect them - what about the guys that rely on their experiences in leadership? That's just selfish and, to be perfectly honest, we're probably better without them.
One asked, "when is enough 'enough' ?" The answer to that is "when the job is done. And not one minute before." If you can't commit to that sacrifice, you seriously need to question your motivation for joining.