Walz’s Stolen Valor
And the Conservatives Who Took It
I’m often unimpressed with Republicans’ unscrupulous efforts to undermine their political opponents, but the recent attacks on Tim Walz’s military history have me particularly heated.
From the moment he was nominated, my conservative peers have blown up my phone with text after text. “Did you see this?” “Look at this shit!” “I can’t believe he was nominated.”
Each text is accompanied by yet another link to some unchecked article challenging Walz’s military record. It’s lazy, sloppy work, and every time I ask my colleagues if they have verified the content of the article, I’m met with the same response: “No, but where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
Well, no. For a nation that touts its patriotism and love for veterans, let’s not allow unsubstantiated attacks against one’s military record to stand.
So I guess I’ll do the work for them.
Broadly, Walz joined the National Guard at age 17, serving in both Nebraska and Minnesota. He completed the 20 years required for retirement in 2001, but reenlisted after the attacks on 9/11. He served through May 2005, for a total of 24 years in service. A copy of his official discharge document has ostensibly been posted here, although I’m unable to independently verify. Nonetheless, these facts alone aren’t in dispute.
Let’s turn to the ones that are.
Challenge 1: Tim Walz’s wartime service
In a 2018 speech about gun control, Walz stated, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.” JD Vance then challenged Walz’s representation of wartime service, asking “Well, I wonder, Tim Walz, when were you ever in war? When was this?”
It’s a question thick with irony, given that Vance–a Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq–has never seen combat himself. (Rather, he served as a combat correspondent while deployed, in a public affairs role.) More to the point, technically Walz has wartime service by the mere dates alone: the War on Terror lasted from September 2001 to August 2021, directly corresponding with Walz’s service through May 2005. For veterans pension benefits, the law requires only that an individual served at least one day during wartime; Walz had far greater than that.
More directly, Walz was deployed to Italy in support of Operation Enduring Freedom from August 2003 to April 2004. His was specifically deployed to “augment United States Air Force Europe Security Forces doing base security for six months.” So while he never served in an official combat zone, Walz was activated for the express intent of supporting U.S. military operations during the War on Terror.
Now this is where it gets murky: can we reasonably say that Walz carried weapons of war, if he didn’t serve in a combat zone? I’d argue yes. At an absolute minimum, all members of the Army National Guard must complete 10 weeks of basic combat training; beyond that, Walz provided base security during his deployment. He further served as “chief of one of the unit’s howitzer batteries and joined the exercise as the battalion’s operations sergeant in the command group.” So to question whether Tim Walz has ever handled assault rifles as part of his military duties is utterly nonsensical.
TL;DR? Tim Walz has wartime service. He was deployed in support of U.S. military operations during the War on Terror. He has most certainly handled a service weapon in the pursuit of his military duties, and he rightfully referenced this experience in advocating for safer gun laws. And when Jake Tapper recently stated that Walz had been deployed to Afghanistan, it was Walz himself who offered the correction. So are we really going to argue that he’s willfully misrepresenting his service?
Given that this article continues, I guess we are.
Challenge 2: Walz’s representation of rank
On his official campaign website, Walz is introduced as follows: “He enlisted in the Army National Guard when he turned 17 and served for 24 years, rising to the rank of Command Sergeant Major [CSM].” During his political career, Walz has repeatedly made mention of his former rank as CSM.
I hate to break it to you, folks: this one’s true. Walz was promoted to CMS, the highest enlisted rank, in 2004. So when he says he served in this capacity, it’s a patently accurate statement. There can be no debate about this.
Instead, Republicans are obfuscating the truth of Walz’s service because at the time of his retirement in 2005, he was serving as a master sergeant, one rank below that of CSM. And what despicable act could Walz have possibly committed to merit such a demotion in rank?
He didn’t complete the necessary coursework.
That’s right. Tim Walz satisfied all the other requirements to reach the status of CSM, including those indicative of superior performance and valor: time in grade and service, selection by a command of his superior officers, cognitive and physical testing, blind interviews, and the requisite training and experience. Tim Walz earned that rank, and has every right to claim it as part of his military history, particularly given that only one percent of reservists and 0.8 percent of active duty servicemembers will ever achieve this honor.
There is neither law nor policy which mandates that Walz speak only of his retiring rank when discussing his military career, and to suggest otherwise implies that no one is free to speak of their highest accomplishments in life. It’s unclear to me why we would be so quick to take that from a man who dedicated more than two decades of his life to serving his country.
Even the Minnesota National Guard seems unimpressed with the far-right’s attempt to undermine Walz’s stellar career, clarifying that “[h]e held multiple positions within field artillery such as firing battery chief, operations sergeant, first sergeant and culminated his career serving as the command sergeant major for the battalion. He retired as a master sergeant in 2005 for benefit purposes because he did not complete additional coursework at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy.” Meaning that this so-called “demotion” was in no way based on Walz’s performance as a servicemember, but merely reflected the degree of coursework completed in order to obtain certain benefits.
TL,DR? He earned the rank. He’s allowed to reference it.
Let’s move on.
Challenge 3: Walz’s “abandonment” of his unit
In another of his recent hits, JD Vance stated: “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, do you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him.” Walz has since faced accusations that he “ditched” his battalion and that his actions were “dishonorable,” in addition to charges of “swiftboating.”
It’s a vile allegation and one which grossly manipulates the truth.
The truth, which is that Walz submitted his retirement paperwork approximately five to seven months before his official retirement in May 2005 (meaning his request was submitted sometime between October and December 2004).
In February 2005, Walz filed a statement of candidacy paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, signaling his intent to run for Congress.
In March 2005, Walz’s unit was informed that they might be deployed to Iraq within the next two years. According to one of his peers, Walz “weighed his retirement from the guard and congressional run ‘very heav[ily]’.”
Walz officially retired from service in May 2005. His unit did not receive an informal “alert order” for potential deployment until July 2005, and the official mobilization order was issued in August 2005.
TL;DR? (Come on, guys.) Contemplating a political run, Walz formally requested to retire a minimum of three months before he had any inclination that his unit might even be deployed.
Now, did he have a difficult choice to make at that time? Absolutely. By all accounts, it was an agonizing decision and one which Walz made only after consulting with the members of his unit.
But let’s be fair. Walz had voluntarily dedicated more than two decades of his life to serving his country with honor, rising to a rank which only one percent of his peers will achieve during their time in service. He then sought to serve his country in other ways, and had taken definitive steps towards doing so by the time he was informed that his unit might be deployed. Had he chosen to remain, he would have had to delay his political career by years–a career which he had rightfully earned and already delayed in the pursuit of his military service.
Sorry, JD, but the math ain’t mathin’. Walz made the decision to retire long before he had any inkling of a potential deployment, and even if he had that prior knowledge? He had every right to take a knee after 24 years in uniform. Veterans have earned their autonomy.
Look, a healthy political system should promote both open discourse and governmental accountability. But these attacks on Walz’s military record are fundamentally mistruthful. What’s more, we are on the precipice of an election where the other option is a literal felon and his weird little sidekick, who have laid out a transition plan which would launch us into a dictatorship premised on their hatred for women, people of color, and more.
So if you’re one of the people who has been blindly forwarding articles attacking Walz’s military credentials, let this article be your guide. Whether you agree or disagree with Walz is your prerogative, but there's enough that divides us already, so perhaps we should pause before impugning the service of man who served 24 years?
(I’ll reiterate that I don’t personally have access to Walz’s service records to corroborate the above. However, those items presented as fact herein have been widely reported by (reliable) media, many of whom do have access to such records. The sources I referenced while writing this piece can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
Thank you. I know you don't share many of his political beliefs and policies, which makes your voice even more important.
Thank you for your commitment to our country, Mr. Walz.