Tim Walz’ Military Record Redux
Some additional (and longwinded) perspective.
Matt Bernius’s post “Reviewing 5 Claims About Tim Walz Military Record” touches on several minor controversies about the presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee, some of which I’d not seen before but the most important of which I had. I fully agree with Matt’s conclusion “I don’t think its stolen valor, but Walz has played it lose when referring to his service,” but have been steeped in the military culture most of my almost six decades and have a different perspective on many of the claims.
Some deck clearing first.
First, while I was only barely aware of him before his name surfaced as a VP candidate, I mostly like what I see. While I disagree with him at the margins on some issues, he seems like a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. While I roll my eyes at the lengths to which he goes to portray himself as an “Everyday Joe,” he seems like a decent guy. He’s qualified to be VP and, should it be necessary, to step up into the big chair. Given the alternatives, I’ll vote for the ticket.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Walz being on the ticket will have almost nothing to do with my vote or that of any other American. In 2008, I wrote multiple scathing posts about the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate. I thought and continue to think that Joe Biden, the VP alternative on the other ticket, was more prepared to serve. I still voted for McCain. (While I thought about it much less, the same is true in hindsight for Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle in 1988.)
Third, while I opposed him for all manner of reasons (my then-strong allegiance to the Republican Party first and foremost of them), I immediately and vociferously defended John Kerry against the smears of the Swift Boaters. While I thought his record of protests against the Vietnam War, including throwing his war medals over the White House fence and some smears against his fellow veterans before Congress were absolutely fair game, the “stolen valor” claims were outrageous and I said so early and often.
All that said, while I take @wr and others’ point that politicians stretch the truth about their past accomplishments as a matter of course, military service is a different animal. Among veterans and active duty personnel, there is simultaneously a fierce and often petty pecking order about who did what but an honor culture that reacts—even over-reacts—to claims to honors one didn’t earn. And Walz has clearly done the latter—and allowed others to do the latter—repeatedly.
Let me take the claims Matt lists in the order in which he debunks them.
Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat.
This is the first I’d seen of the charge and I largely agree with Matt that it’s not a big deal. He has frequently worn a camouflage baseball cap with the De Oppresso Liber crest of the U.S. Army Special Forces, the Green Berets. It was a gift given to him, as a Member of Congress, when he visited the 1st Group. Given that he’s never claimed to be SF, it’s certainly not a “stolen valor” issue.
That said: I wouldn’t wear the hat outside the context in which it was given. When presented with the hat, I’d have put it on and gotten photographed with the presenters. Depending on my reading of the room, I might have left it on. I would subsequently have put it on my mantle or wherever my SWAG was displayed and never worn it again precisely because I’d be embarrassed to give someone the impression that I’d been SF when I hadn’t earned that right.
More than a decade ago, I was part of a delegation from the Atlantic Council that did a distinguished visitor tour of the USS Eisenhower. We were all presented Eisenhower ball caps with scrambled eggs on the visor. I haven’t worn it since we left the carrier. While I suppose I have the “right” to wear the cap, most people seeing me in it would naturally assume that I had served in the Navy and been assigned to the Ike.
Similarly, I’ve been working for the Marine Corps since 2013. It would never occur to me to wear a hat, shirt, lapel pin, or anything else that said “U.S. Marines,” “USMC,” or the like on it because it might give the incorrect impression that I served in the Marines. (I served, but in the Army.) I have plenty of SWAG that says “Marine Corps Command and Staff College” and some that says “Marine Corps University.” Those, I’ve earned the right to wear.
Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror.
Matt is right here: Walz deployed to his unit to Europe to backfill soldiers who had been deployed to war zones. That’s honorable service and more than most did. (It’s more than I did in terms of the GWOT.)
But, to me, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war” goes well beyond puffery. It’s a goddamn lie. While it doesn’t cross the line into “stolen valor,” it’s awfully goddamn close. It’s, frankly, shameful.
And, frankly, in the broader context of GWOT, I would hesistate to describe going to Germany to relieve actual soldiers to go to actual combat as being “deployed.” It’s technically correct but gives a misleading impression that I think intentional.
Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit.
This is two claims, which I’ll dissect in order. Because it’s the most damning and prominent of the claims, I’ll devote the most time to it.
Matt presents the timeline that Walz’ defenders have put out and, to the best of my knowledge, it’s accurate. Unlike the previous case, Walz actually deserves some credit here: His press release announcing his candidacy for Congress acknowledged that he was aware that portions of his battalion would be deployed. But he’s shading the truth here, too.
First off, if a significant portion of the battalion is deployed, it’s a sure bet that the commander, command sergeant major (CSM), and primary staff will go with them. Walz was the CSM. So, it’s not like it was a random lottery he was avoiding.
Second, I’m reliably informed that the practice in those days for Guard units was to issue early warnings to the command team about probable deployments precisely so that people who didn’t want to serve—or were unfit to serve—could muster out before the orders came down. Unlike the Reserve, the Guard has a very long history of cronyism. For much of its history, it was a way to pretend to serve in the military without much chance of having to actually go to war. Additionally, during that period, there were severe manpower shortages, so Guard units allowed people who were medically and otherwise unfit to serve to stay on the rolls collecting (meager) paychecks and earning (rather significant) retirement pensions. (It should be noted, this would very soon change. The Guard would become an active reserve, expected to routinely deploy to combat. Walz retired at the tail end of the former era.)
Third and relatedly, the rules for dropping retirement paperwork Matt cites are correct now. They weren’t then. It was pretty easy for Guardsmen to get out of their contracts and, certainly, to retire.
Does all of this constitute “abandoning his unit”? I’m of mixed minds.
Walz had decided to run for Congress. While I’m sure his motives were mixed—he clearly has a lot more ambition that his “aw shucks” persona lets on—that’s a form of national service that’s arguably more important than serving as CSM of an artillery battalion. And, while he never went to combat, 24 years of service is, again, way more than most gave.
At the same time, I can understand why some in his unit—his commander and some of his subordinates—might feel bitter about their CSM dropping his papers in the run-up to a combat tour. The unit would lose men in the war and get many more wounded. If they felt abandoned, I wouldn’t blame them.
It’s worth noting that, unlike the Swift Boat smears, these charges seem to have been organic and to have emerged well before Walz’ selection for the VP bid. Again, I don’t think they’ll amount to much. But they’re not manufactured outrage, either.
Walz has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8)
Here again, Walz is simply lying his ass off. He’s repeatedly claimed, in official publications, to have retired as a CSM. Kamala Harris’ introduction of him played up this rank.
In fact, as Matt notes, while he was promoted in-house to CSM (something that doesn’t happen in the real Army), he was in fact a Master Sergeant, the next lower* rank. He would have actually promoted to CSM had he completed (apparently, by correspondence) the Sergeants Major Academy. He did not do so before putting in his retirement papers.
It would be somewhat weasely but, in my judgment, acceptable, to say that he’d served as his battalion’s CSM. But to say that he’d achieved the rank of CSM, much less that he’d retired at that rank, is a goddamn lie.
In the real Army, by the way, selection for Sergeant Major is a very big deal. There are relatively few slots available and selection (as for Sergeant First Class and Master Sergeant) is by a centralized Army-level promotion board. In the Guard of Walz’ day, it was hand-picked by the local commander. So, from my perspective (which is likely not Walz’) it’s doubly dubious to claim the title. (Then again, I have trouble with his claim that he “served 24 years in the Army” when his entire career, save arguably the deployment to non-combat in Europe, was in the Nebraska and Minnesota Guard.)
***
All of that, though, is very Inside Baseball. Will there be some significant number of veterans who have hard feeling over Walz’ claims? Quite possibly. Will it matter in the election? I doubt it.
Relatedly, as Matt’s post notes some “bothsides” discussions on these matters, I want to note this graphic that I saw on the Facebook page of an esteemed former colleague as a way of comparing the military service of the two VP candidates:
It’s rather amusing at first blush but incredibly deceptive.
First, I’m sorry, 24 years in the National Guard of Walz’ day is not 24 years of real service. There was next to zero chance that we were going to call up a Guard artillery unit for combat. Second, as already discussed, he never attained pay grade E-9. He was an E-8 wearing CSM rank insignia—and assigned to the CSM billet—in a Guard unit. Third, all of the awards listed for Walz save the top two are what we call “I was there” medals and ribbons. They’re all for simply being in the Guard during certain periods of time or completing mandatory training. And, frankly, an Army Commendation Medal is a paltry top award, indeed, for a senior NCO.
Vance’s NAM is, simultaneously not all that impressive and the highest award a corporal is likely to achieve absent combat valor. And he actually received plenty of I Was There awards: “Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Letter of Appreciation (5th award), Meritorious Mast Certificate of Appreciation, and various Campaign and Service Medals.” That’s not bad for four years of service and, frankly, much more impressive to anyone in the know that Walz’ rack.
In fairness, some veterans will scoff that he was in public affairs rather than a combat arms billet. But he did at least carry a rifle in a place where he could be potentially called upon to use it. Walz, claims to the contrary, did not.
Army NCO ranks are a bit odd. At pay grade E-8, one can be a Master Sergeant or a First Sergeant. The pay is the same but the latter is more prestigious, as it’s a specific leadership billet: the senior enlisted advisor in a company/battery/troop. At pay grade E-9, on can be a Sergeant Major or a Command Sergeant Major. The latter is the senior enlisted advisor at a battalion or higher formation. Making it more confusing, 1SG and CSM are billet-specific. So, as was the case with my late father, one can serve as a company 1SG and then subsequently be assigned to a staff billet and revert to the default MSG rank. Usually, but not always, one is allowed to retire in the more prestigious rank if they’ve served in it.
Jen says:
First, I’m sorry, 24 years in the National Guard of Walz’ day is not 24 years of real service.
Yikes. What a patronizing, disdainful sentence. I expected better.
But, to me, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war” goes well beyond puffery. It’s a goddamn lie.
This still seems like a speechwriter used the “rule of threes” in writing this sentence (which is why someone senior, including the person giving the speech, should read it for accuracy and correct any rhetorical flourishes that cross over into “nope, didn’t happen”). If we’re going to parse this, we need to apply this same standard elsewhere, starting with the lying jackass at the top of the Republican ticket. Let’s start with his suggestions that the school he was sent to to correct his poor behavior as a teen was somehow “military service.”
This whole “debate” has crossed over into the ridiculous. I’m officially done with this topic, it isn’t worth anyone’s time.
[Updated] Reviewing 5 Claims About Tim Walz Military Record
I don't think its stolen valor, but Walz has played it lose when referring to his service
Since his announcement on Tuesday, one of the lines of attack against Tim Walz is that he has misrepresented his military record to the point of committing “Stolen Valor.” Today, OTB commenter @Lucysfootball asked about the topic in the Daily Open Comments thread:
So this is the Walz quote that the right is attacking hoim with:
“I spent 25 years in the Army and I hunt. I’ve been voting for common sense legislation that protects the Second Amendment, but we can do background checks. We can research the impacts of gun violence. We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war,” Walz said in his speech, aiming toward voters who don’t want guns on the streets.
There are lots of military vets here, I’m wondering what they think of this quote?
Before I go any further, let me be clear: I have not served in the military and cannot comment on this from a military perspective. I have spent time over the last few days looking into this to try and disentangle what facts exist and then offer my perspective on how they are being interpreted.
Going back to @Lucysfootball’s comment, there are three primary attacks and two minor ones that have emerged to date. I am placing these in a rough order from the biggest claims to the smallest ones:
- Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit.
- Walz has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8).
- Walz claimed to have been in combat (tied to @Lucyfootball’s quote).
- Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror.
- Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat.
Here’s what the facts say (with some commentary from a range of people who have military experience). First, let’s get rid of the two minor ones:
Walz steals valor by wearing a special forces hat.
This
is the most out-there one and pretty easily dismissed. The hat was
gifted to him by a Special Forces unit when Walz was on the
Congressional Armed Services committee. Here’s context from the Stolen
Valor Xtter account (which is one of the sources for this article).
This argument is similar to saying that wearing a Yankee’s hat gifted to you by the team is the same as claiming you played for the Yankees.
Walz never deployed during the Global War on Terror.
This
is easily proven false. During his final tour of duty with the
Minnesota National Guard, Walz deployed to Europe in 2003 as part of the
Global War on Terror (aka Operation Enduring Freedom). From the Washington Post:
Walz, asked by the oral history interviewer where his combat experience occurred, said initially that his unit — the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery — had served “throughout the European theater with Operation Enduring Freedom,” the name the Pentagon used to describe the war in Afghanistan and other counterterrorism assignments. A Minnesota Army National Guard history of Walz’s battalion verifies that the unit deployed in 2003 to Italy, Turkey, Belgium and Britain in support of the war effort.
Walz clarified later in the interview that he and his fellow Guard members initially thought they would fire artillery, but later learned they would be assigned in Europe to backfill other U.S. troops who were going to war.
Now that the easily disproven claims are out of the way, we get into the thornier questions.
Walz claimed to have been in combat.
At
no point in his career has Walz explicitly claimed to have been in
combat or served in a combat zone. As I just noted, his one OEF
deployment was to Europe. While it was in support of the Afghan war, he
and his unit, never got closer to Afghanistan than Turkey.
However, he did make statements like the one @Lucysfootball noted which, intentionally or not, implied combat:
Walz: “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.”
The phrase people have called attention to is “that I carried in war.” Walz did carry a standard-issue rifle at times during his service and he served during a war. He most likely didn’t carry it often during his time in Europe. From the Washington Post:
Thomas Behrends, a retired command sergeant major who also was on that deployment, said it was very clear that their unit was not going to war.
“He’s sugarcoating it to make it more than it was,” Behrends said. After 9/11, he added, the Air Force realized it needed to better safeguard its airfields and requested the National Guard to assist.
“That was the mission from the get-go,” Behrends said. “There was nothing ever said about going to combat.”
For context, Retired Command Sergeant Major Thomas Behrends is one of the two primary critics of Walz’s service. However, I think he has a point on this one. When the average person hears “in a war” they often interpret it as “in combat.” Military members clearly see it in similar terms, as our own @Steve, who is a military veteran, responded to @Lucysfootball today with:
I served during the Vietnam war but did not deploy there so I learned long ago not to declare myself a Vietnam vet.
In using those words Walz hammered home his view that AR-platform rifles are weapons of war. It would have been more accurate to say, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in the National Guard, are only carried in war.” Rhetorically it doesn’t work as well. But that doesn’t excuse the ambiguity created by what he said.
Walz retired to avoid deployment to Iraq and, in doing so, abandoned his unit.
This
claim isn’t so much one of Stolen Valor as it is, I guess, cowardess.
At least that is the way that J. D. Vance has framed it:
“When the United State Marine Corps, when the United States of America asked me to go to Iraq to serve my country, I did it. I did what they asked me to do, and I did it honorably and I’m very proud of that service. When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him,”
[source: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/07/politics/tim-walz-military-record-vance-attack/index.html]
Ultimately, this is the muddiest of all the claims due to timelines and a question of who did what, who knew what, and when did everything happen. Thankfully Task and Purpose has done great research into the timeline, so I don’t have to pull everything together:
- April 2004: Walz returns to Minnesota with the
1/125th after a year-long deployment as part of Operation Enduring
Freedom in Turkey and Europe. Walz was stationed at Vicenza, Italy,
where the unit pulled guard duty on friendly military bases, which may
have been back-fill duty for active duty units deployed to Afghanistan.
He was promoted to command sergeant major of the battalion soon after
returning.
- March 2005: Walz’s newly-formed campaign for a Congressional House seat releases a press release that indicates Walz is aware of a possible but unconfirmed deployment,
though no official orders have been announced. “The National Guard
Public Affairs Office announced a possible partial mobilization of
roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard,” the press
release said. “The announcement from the National Guard PAO specified
that all or a portion of Walz’s battalion could be mobilized to serve in
Iraq within the next two years… When asked about his possible
deployment to Iraq Walz said, ‘As Command Sergeant Major I have a
responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to
serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of
my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or in Iraq.”
- May 2005: Walz officially retires from the Minnesota National Guard after 24 years of service, according to documents posted online that appear to be his NGB Form 22, a Report of Separation and Record of Service. Walz previously retired after 20 years of service but returned to service after Sept. 11, he wrote in a Winona Daily News opinion piece, re-enlisting for four years. However, his NGB Form 22 indicates his “terminal reserve/military service obligation” date was September 2007.
One important thing to note here is that, like most jobs, you don’t just announce on the day you are leaving that you are retiring. While I couldn’t find a document that gave guidance for when to submit the request for retirement, I found the recommendations for Air Reservists and these mirror what I have seen people say about the National Guard (and most military branches):
Retirees can apply no earlier than 12 months prior to their retirement effective date. It is recommended that applications are submitted no later than 180 days prior (earlier the better) to their retirement effective date to ensure payment and/or benefits are received on time.
Assuming Walz followed a similar recommended timeframe, he would have submitted his retirement papers sometime in September 2004 (180 days before his retirement date). Theoretically, Walz could have known about the possible deployment as early as then, but there’s no evidence to back that up. Here’s Task and Purpose on that part of the timeline:
- July 2005: The 125th Field Artillery Regiment receives initial call-up orders and, that fall, deploys for training in Mississippi as part of the 34th Infantry Divisions’ 1st Brigade Combat Team.
- March 2006: The 125th deploys to Iraq, 10 months after Walz had separated from the unit. The unit will not return until September 2007.
Many details of Walz’s decision process remain unclear. The press release by Walz’s campaign indicates he knew a deployment was possible at least four months before the unit received official orders and two before he retired. But that timeline could have several missing pieces.
For one, such advanced ‘heads-up’ notice is commonly provided to senior leaders of deployable units, and can often change or fall through as Pentagon planners shuffle deployment plans a year or more ahead of time.
A second uncertainty lies in the May 2005 retirement date when Walz’s retirement became official. It likely came many months after he ‘dropped his papers’ to inform his chain of command he intended to retire, beginning the process.
So here’s the tl;dr: Walz had retired from the guard at the 20-year mark and then re-enlisted after 9/11. He served four years in the guard and was eligible for retirement. By that time, he was 40, married, and had a young child at home. He had already been deployed once in the Global War on Terror. He had also made the decision that he was going to run for Congress and was in the process of laying the groundwork for that. And, he most likely had filed to retire in the fall of 2004. Also if he had chosen to stay in until the unit was deployed, he would have had to wait until 2006 and would not have been able to run for Congress.
As Task and Purpose notes, even some Walz critics have said he was well within his rights to make this decision:
At least one soldier who knew Walz as well as any has defended him — despite not being a fan. Joseph Eustice, whose personal Facebook page today has anti-Walz posts, held the same job as Walz — command sergeant major of 1st battalion, 125th Artillery Regiment.
When the retirement controversy flared up in 2022, Eustice told local media that Walz fulfilled his duty.
“He was a great soldier,” Eustice told the Star Tribune. “When he chose to leave, he had every right to leave.”
Several other soldiers from Walz’s unit echoed that sentiment, including a former brigadier general.
Walz
has misrepresented his rank, claiming to be a rank higher (Command
Sergeant Major – E9) than his retirement rank (Master Sergeant – E8)
This
is another case where the facts are clear, but the way Walz’s office
has represented them isn’t very transparent. Starting with the facts
from Military.com:
Walz enlisted in the Army National Guard in Nebraska in 1981 and retired honorably in 2005 as the top enlisted soldier for 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment, in the Minnesota National Guard, according to a copy of his records provided by the Minnesota Guard. He reached the rank of command sergeant major and served in that role, but he officially retired as a master sergeant for benefits purposes because he didn’t finish a required training course, according to the records and a statement from the Minnesota Guard.
Now we get to the representation issue. If we look at Walz’s biography on the Minnesota government site, it contains this passage:
After 24 years in the Army National Guard, Command Sergeant Major Walz retired from the 1-125th Field Artillery Battalion in 2005.
Likewise, his congressional bio states:
Walz enlisted in the Army National Guard at the young age of 17, and retired 24 years later as
Command Sergeant Major.
Now we get into a topic I didn’t know anything about before two days ago (which, according to Xtter is just enough time to become a newly minted expert): Military Retirement Ranks. When you retire from the military, your retirement rank is used to determine benefits. At the time he retired, he had the provisional rank of Command Sergeant Major (an E9 position) and was serving in that role. However, he did not complete the coursework or the necessary service timeframe to be permanently given the rank, so his retirement rank is one lower, Sergeant Major (E8).
As with the “I carried in war” comment above, I think both bio entries are playing loose with the truth. What they said is technically true, we has serving in that capacity at the time of retirement, but don’t tell the full story. Simply put, I think there is weasel wording happening here.
[Update: In a true example of “bothsiderism” one of the Trump supporters who has attacked Walz is engaged in the same sort of weasel wording about their rank. In 2022, Ronny Jackson was investigated by the Navy for a number of issues and had his retirement rank reduced from Rear Admiral to Captain. His current Congressional website uses language very similar to Walz’s when talking about his rank:
In December 2019, after 25 years of distinguished service to his country, Dr. Jackson retired from the United States Navy as a Rear Admiral.
On Jackson’s Veteran’s issue page he also repeats the claim:
As a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen to serve our country. I am very in tune with their needs, and that of their families.
From the Texas Tribune’s reporting on Jackson:
But Jackson is no longer a retired admiral. The Navy demoted him in July 2022 following a damaging Pentagon inspector general’s report that substantiated allegations about his inappropriate behavior as a White House physician, a previously unreported decision confirmed by a current defense official and a former U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel move.
Jackson is now a retired Navy captain, those people said — a demotion that carries significant financial burden in addition to the social stigma of stripped rank in military circles.
Despite the demotion, Jackson has continued to refer to himself as a retired rear admiral, including in statements released since the Navy reclassified him as a retired captain. Former president Donald Trump and other Republicans have also continued to publicly describe Jackson using his former rank; it’s unclear if they were aware of his demotion.
One would hope that the Trump campaign would be as concerned with this weasel wording and getting retirement rank correct as they are with Walz.]
But is it Stolen Valor?
From
a lay persons perspective, while Walz is using weasel words, I don’t
think it rises to my understanding of Stolen Valor (and definitely not
to the level of the 2013 amended Stolen Valor act).
FWIW, this is reflected in the views of one Veteran with political experience who recently expressed his views on the topic. Former Republican Congressman Peter Meijer wrote the following take:
Gonna piss off everyone with this take, but what the hell:
I think Walz played fast & loose with his military bio to stay above water as his congressional district drifted right. He let audiences paint in their minds a deceptive picture. It was shady but not stolen valor. (1/5)Walz alluding to “weapons in war, that I carried in war” to give credibility to his pro gun control stance intentionally sought to paint this ‘deceptive picture,’ just like saying ‘deployed during OEF.’ But he didn’t claim unearned medals or lie about being in IRQ/AFG. (2/5)
Some earlier reporting bought the ‘deceptive picture’ I mentioned above, but that’s not Walz’ words. I’ve had reporters say/write that I was a Marine, or an Afghanistan vet. Trickier was ‘combat vet,’ which I didn’t claim but others have described. His burden to correct. (3/5)
I’d try to correct reporting on me- I definitely wasn’t a Marine, and though I spent 18 mos in AFG vs 9 mos in Iraq, fact is I was a civilian in AFG + not in uniform (tho in much more danger). Veteran of that conflict in a sense, but not in the sense ‘Afghan vet’ connotes. (4/5)
Whether the mobilization/retirement timing was coincidental or a dick move is something I think only the enlisted soldiers in his unit can say. I know one or two have spoken publicly it was a dick move, but I’d like to hear from a plurality to account for personal beefs. (5/5)
Unrelated to Walz, the ‘combat vet’ identifier has always made me wince. I wouldn’t correct if someone called me one but I’m not comfortable describing myself as a ‘combat vet.’ I served in a combat zone, regularly left the wire, was on a number of smaller bases, and took occasional on-base IDF (including at least one POI probably within a CAB-qualifying <100m). But to me, ‘combat vet’ implies firing a shot in anger, getting fired at, or frequently being in a position to potentially have one or the other happen.
If I described myself as a ‘combat vet’ it would create an inaccurate picture of my service- and even if I met a technical definition and the underlying facts are accurate, that’s still deceptive in my book.
Meijer would go on to add:
More information may come out that changes my view, but for the moment I’m aligned with Meijer. I don’t think this is a good look for Walz AND I also think this is being blown out of proportion for political reasons. That is, as I mentioned yesterday, normal politics. But I wonder if this is a great long-term play, especially when the Republican running for President was a draft dodger.
