A Professional Army vs. Draftees

By Philip Giraldi • July 27, 2012, 10:34 AM

I learned something interesting while recently attending the retirement ceremony of an Army officer who is a friend of mine. In today’s volunteer force of professional soldiers someone is discharged on the day they actually leave the service. Back in my time during the Vietnam War, one left the army 48 to 72 hours before the actual date on the discharge papers, meaning that you were technically still in the service for two or three more days. This was intended to prevent an irate draftee’s attempting to return to his unit to punch out his officers. As one would still be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice a court martial would follow such behavior plus a fast trip to Leavenworth.

Another aspect of the old draftee army was the need to give frequent expression to the diminishing number of days that one had left in the service. This was referred to as a short-timer’s attitude. A “single-digit midget” had fewer than ten days to go while a “two-digit midget” had fewer than 100 days left. In my intel outfit those of us who were short-timers would periodically stick our heads out of our office doorways and shout out “Short!” which would result in a flood of officers converging in the hallway searching for the culprit. Does the modern army have short-timers or has the concept disappeared?

Are today’s professional soldiers better behaved than the citizen soldiers of the past or were we citizens in uniform on to something in terms of our lack of respect for certain aspects of the military?

Posted in War.

9 Responses to A Professional Army vs. Draftees

Joe the Plutocrat says:

July 27, 2012 at 11:12 am

I suspect the focus on DEROS, etc.; was specific to a conscript’s view of the American involvement in Southeast Asia. That is to say; the “certain aspect(s)” was, to paraphrase LBJ; “…sending American boys 10,000 mile to do what Vietnamese boys should be doing…” combined with the fact that this is EXACTLY what LBJ did! I am sure you are also aware of the “what are they going to do; send me to Vietnam?” mantra in response to threats of punitive actions on the part of officers/NCOs attempts to discipline troops. There are likely as many motives for enlisting today; as there are soldiers today; but during the Vietnam era, for the most part; “motive” had nothing to do with service – unless of course, your last name was Cheney, Romney, Bush, Quayle, etc.

Former Marine NCO says:

July 27, 2012 at 11:25 am

Mr. Giraldi,

You pose some interesting questions. I was a former enlisted infantry Marine.

The concept of cutting a serviceman lose 2-3 days before his actual discharge to avoid lieutenants from being beaten up does not exist anymore, but we do have “terminal leave.” This means if you have leave days accrued, you can take them all in one chunk before your discharge date. You leave base forever and you don’t have to come back ever again.

The concept of short-timers still does exist. Even though we are volunteers, most infantry Marines find that we want to leave the Corps as soon as possible. This is not because we are “dirtbags,” but rather because life as a junior enlisted infantry Marine is simply miserable. It is impossible to know what you are really getting into until you enlist. Once you sign up they have you and it is too late to change your mind. Deploying is not the bad part — that is why we joined. The misery comes from the ridiculous nature of daily life in the military.

Many infantry battalions actively seek to segregate the short-timer grunts. Once an infantryman no longer has time to deploy again based on the timing of his discharge date and his unit’s scheduled departure, he is deemed “nondeployable” and is unofficially a short-timer. Many grunts at this point feel that they “did their time” and become passive-aggressive dirtbags.

Smart units understand that bad-attitude is poisonous to unit cohesion and presents a bad example for the “boots,” (these are the new Marines fresh from boot camp and infantry school). Short-timers are often given temporary orders to work elsewhere on base.

As far as overall behavior goes, I’m sure that modern infantry Marines behave better than Vietnam-era draftees. I do NOT, however, believe this behavioral distinction arises from the fact that we are volunteers rather than draftees. The distinction arises from the fact that those draftees understood the idiotic, futile, and fatal nature of the Vietnam war. The World War II military was a draft force, but were there behavioral problems?

As far as drug use goes, the Marine Corps has instituted an extremely aggressive urinalysis process. Here’s how it works: At the end of the work day the squad leader or platoon sergeant is told to tell his Marines to report the next morning wearing “green on green.” This means the Marines should wear green shorts and T-shirts, ostensibly for physical training.

The next morning, instead of PT, we are told to report to the battalion building where we stand in line for two hours until getting to the bathroom. There, a staff non-commissioned officer on “cock-watch” closely observes us while we piss into a cup. This process happens about once a month. Interestingly, some Marines have “stage fright” and can’t urinate on command while being observed. These poor souls stand outside the bathroom chugging water until they can create a urine sample.

We *love* being treated like would-be stoners.

Fritz says:

July 27, 2012 at 11:27 am

A third, and more likely, possibility is that draftees were more likely than volunteers to resent their time in service.

Joe the Plutocrat says:

July 27, 2012 at 11:52 am

Fritz, do you believe the same true for the previous generation (WWII)? In my mind the “resentment” likely had something to do specifically with Vietnam.

Ben, Okla. City says:

July 27, 2012 at 5:11 pm

I was yelling “short” at morning P.T. in the 1990s. I doubt that the practice has gone away. It’s handed down to each generation, like an old M-16.

cka2nd says:

July 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm

Bob Newhart had a routine on one of his old albums where he made a crack about nobody doing any work in the army, and Joseph Heller started writing Catch-22 in 1953. I think I’ve read somewhere that new research is finding that WW II vets suffered PTSD in numbers similar to those of later wars. And, as was just cited on HBO’s “The Newsroom” a couple of weeks ago, World War I soldiers were catching STD’s at a truly prodigous rate (hence the government’s pro-condom campaign during WW II).

I would guess that the attitudes of the military rank-and-file have been pretty constant over the decades if not centuries, if with occasional flare-ups, but I’d love to hear from some older vets or historians of earlier wars.