Dem
51
GOP
49
Yesterday, we had an item on the attacks being made against Tim Walz's military record. We had to write that at the last minute, because the news story reached critical mass pretty late in the day on Wednesday. Our initial response was that J.D. Vance and the Republicans are making mountains out of molehills. Now that another 24 hours has passed... we still think that.
Because this is a pretty important news story, we thought we should quickly revisit it, and pass along some insights from readers who know the issues better than we do. We got a few e-mails like this one from reader N.N. in South Bend, IN, who is a captain in the U.S. Army Reserve:
The "context" of Tim Walz's service and retirement that you mention do not support any of the assertions made by J.D Vance:So, two completely false accusations and one teetering on the knife's edge. I will leave it to others to compare both men's service, or to explore the motives of individuals behind the initial accusations made against Walz, and close with this: the military is a vast, complex beast with plenty of nuance, and each servicemember's experience is unique. To exploit that nuance in order to cast aspersions on a fellow veteran via rumor and innuendo is the height of dishonor. J.D. Vance, semper fu** off.
- Improper Use of Rank: Command Sergeant Major (CSM) is both a position title, and a rank. Walz served in the position and thus earned the title. The Minnesota National Guard has issued public statements affirming this.
- False Claims of Service Duty: Did Walz point a weapon at the enemy in a hot zone during his post-9/11 deployment? No. Was he assigned and issued a weapon that left Minnesota with him during an ordered deployment in support of an active armed conflict? Most likely. (If not, then this is semi-legitimate criticism, though casting the first stone with regard to exaggerating one's past is mighty rich for someone on a ticket with former president Trump.)
- Abandoning of Unit: Enlisted retirements in the military must be approved by the chain of command. Walz's retirement was approved by the Minnesota National Guard BEFORE the unit received orders to mobilize to Iraq; had his request been submitted after the mobilization order, it would have been denied. Additionally, the "2 months" refers to the time from Walz's retirement to when the mobilization orders were issued, NOT to when the unit was wheels-up.
Meanwhile, on the second point, R.M. in Eugene, OR, adds this:
Ah, for the lack of a comma or two.
"We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried, in war is the only place where those weapons are at."
People do not speak according to the textbook rules of grammar, as any linguist will tell you.
And on the third point, D.M. in Massapequa Park, NY, notes this:
The line of attack on Walz's military service and his "abandoning" his unit is even more despicable when one realizes that in 2005 the Department of Defense had instituted a "stop-loss" policy, forbidding active duty soldiers from ending their enlistment periods and freezing retirements. If Walz was able to retire after his 20+ years of service, it was with official blessing from the Department of Defense and not something he should have been ashamed of. Furthermore, retirement from the military at that rank (E8/E9) does not happen overnight and can take upwards of a year for the paperwork to process. There is no way he could have simply walked into his commanding officer's office and just quit; there was a process to go through that had to be initiated long before his unit was even selected to go overseas.
Thanks to the three of you for the benefit of your expertise!
We will also add a link to this article from Task & Purpose, which is a news site for the veteran community. That publication also backs Walz' version of events, and includes a detailed timeline of the last couple of years of Walz' career, including his first known conversations about retirement with his superiors (March 2005), his actual retirement (May 2005), the issuance of a deployment order for his unit (July 2005) and actual deployment (March 2006).
In short, not only do Vance's claims appear to be lacking in substance (a conclusion we also reached yesterday), but they also appear to be pi**ing off many members of the military community (which we speculated might happen). So, it sure looks like trying to swiftboat Tim Walz is a losing play, which means the Trump/Vance ticket should abandon it. That said, questioning Kamala Harris' Blackness also looks to be a losing play, and yet Trump is still sticking with it (see above), so you never know. (Z)