In T2K, one army's deserter is another's volunteer. My favorite PC (to play) is a Latvian deserter from the Red Army serving in a small unit made up mostly of NATO troops, currently operating as freelancers in the service of the Free City of Gdansk. Although the unit operates exclusively against PACT troops (and marauders), in all likelihood, its entire membership would be considered deserters. Heck, Varis Babicevs, my Latvian PC, would be considered a deserter by both the Red and U.S. Armies!
I totally agree the lines would be blurred by 2000. The nebulous definition of deserter could lend itself to all kinds of liberties being taken, both by those labeled as deserters, and by those in positions of authority.
By 2000, I don't think that most armies would reject or punish soldiers that straggled in after days, weeks, or even months of being AWOL. Units were just too starved for experienced manpower to turn their noses up at returning deserters. That said, I think it would depend on the commander. In my essay, State of the U.S. Army in the Year 2000, I think I mentioned that some cantonment commanders had leeway to deal with criminals and deserters in any way that they saw fit. Some might take them back with open arms, no questions asked, others may detain them or assign them hard labor or other distasteful jobs that need doing, and some might execute deserters in order to send a message to the rest of the troops.
That's for deserters who return voluntarily. For those "captured" by patrols or whatever, I would expect treatment towards the harsher end of the spectrum would be fairly common.
If a more liberal policy was in place, I can see troops giving themselves extended leaves- in other words, temporary desertion. On an interesting, somewhat related side-note, that was one common form of passive resistance carried out by slaves in the antebellum South- running away for a day or two. Apparently, many slave masters chose to look the other way, as long as the runaway returned before too long.
|