Veterans React to Attacks by JD Vance on Tim Walz’s Military Service

There’s a nasty battle over military service occurring in America’s presidential race. You may have heard about it.

It’s a war of words regarding the military record of Vice President Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Govenor Tim Walz, who has come under relentless attack by the Trump campaign.

Walz rose up the ranks in the National Guard for 24 years (starting at age 17), however, there’s a controversy over two misstatements he made in the past — one while he served and another afterwards.

The first claim involves Walz saying he used weapons during wartime; he never saw combat.

And second, Ohio Senator JD Vance (Trump’s running mate) claims Walz embellished his military title after he retired. Walz said on a few occasions that his rank was one level higher; it was not.

Additionally, the Trump campaign alleges that Walz retired from the National Guard specifically to avoid accompanying his unit in a deployment to Afghanistan. But Walz retired months prior to the deployment to run for a seat in Congress, which he won.

Vance accuses Walz of “stolen valor” — among other personal attacks.

That’s why Walz is taking a barrage of incoming fire by Vance, who served for a few years in the Marines— including in a non-combat deployment to Baghdad, Iraq.

It’s notable that former U.S. senate candidate in Kentucky, Amy McGrath, the first woman Marine fighter pilot to fly a combat mission, has said Vance spent most of his time in Iraq doing desk work in an air-conditioned tent. McGrath is a Marine veteran with two decades of valorous service.

This raging controversy of Walz’s military service raises an important question which I first addressed yesterday from a personal point of view, due to having a veteran family member. My late father served in the Army’s 10th Mountain Division (see post below):

Is it unpatriotic for one veteran to castigate the service of another for political gain or any other reason?

In order to get some more clarity on the issue from those who have actually served, I posed the question to several veterans via my LinkedIn newsletter: “The Pulse of Politics — USA”

Following is what vets in my LinkedIn network told me…

Volunteerism & Sacrifice

Myles B. Caggins III is a retired U.S. Army Colonel. He is a three-tour combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Syria.

Caggins serves on the board of directors of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. He made the following comments to me in his personal capacity:

“At times military service is overly lionized by the public; while we should appreciate the volunteerism of all veterans and the sacrifices made by their families, then when, where, and how they serve — including combat deployment — is often driven by decisions made in the Pentagon or 4-star headquarters far away from the motor pools and barracks where most troops work.”

“Candidates for office who have volunteered and served America, typically have valuable insights and deeply consider the human impacts of military decisions.”

“Every single service member has a role in bringing hope to our friends and striking fear in the hearts of our foes, those who served honorably all played a part in the defense of America.”
“What’s more important than quibbling about the honorable military service record of the candidates, is hearing their strategy and vision for America’s national security and their priorities for the Department of Veteran Affairs.”

Unwarranted & Unpatriotic

“Questioning a service member’s record without clear evidence is not only unwarranted but unpatriotic,” said Valarie R. Austin, U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel (retired). “It diminishes the respect due to all who have served, especially as military participation declines.”

“Every individual’s service — active duty, National Guard, or reserve — deserves our utmost respect.”

“Attacking a fellow veteran’s service for political gain is un-American and diverts attention from policy debates. The ‘Swift Boat’ controversy surrounding John Kerry’s campaign shows how such tactics can unfairly tarnish distinguished records.”

“Public discourse should focus on policy issues, not on undermining military service without undeniable evidence of misconduct.”

“As veterans, we have a duty to support one another, not engage in baseless attacks that disrespect all who have worn the uniform.” — Army vet Valarie R. Austin

A Collective Commitment

“There exists a profound sense of pride and camaraderie among veterans,” said Corina DuBois, who served in the Navy as one of very few women on combat ships.

“When one veteran publicly denigrates another — both of whom have served honorably — their actions not only tarnish the individual but also undermine the very essence of the honor associated with military service to our nation.”

“Having had the privilege to serve as one of the first women aboard combat ships, I have witnessed the damaging effects of having to continually validate one’s service in response to baseless criticisms.”

“Such attitudes often stem from an entrenched institutional mindset, which can adversely affect both our collective commitment to serve our country and the manner in which we, as veterans, are viewed by the broader public.”

“In my experience, the path to overcoming these challenges lies in unwavering dedication to furthering our commitment to honor and appreciate the sacrifices of our nation’s veterans.”

“By promoting the pride that accompanies honorable service, we not only enhance our own reputation but also reflect positively on our nation and military, as well as on each individual who has served and will continue to serve the United States.”

Not Patriots, But Traitors

Most of the veterans in my LinkedIn network who agreed with Vance’s criticism of Walz declined to publicly comment.

However, there are those who don’t mind voicing their strongly held beliefs, even if those opinions may strike some as inflammatory.

Len Swanson, a veteran of the Vietnam War, told me he “enlisted in 1972 and was given an opportunity to become an officer, being deployed to many different overseas locations” until he resigned in 1986 to serve in other capacities.

“Those like Walz are not patriots but traitors,” Swanson told me. “And, as such, the only justice for men is what true warriors have done from the beginning of time.”

“It’s important to tell the whole story of how Walz knowingly betrayed his unit and men he trained for combat.”

“When it came time to answer the call of duty, Walz ‘turned tell’ and, in essence, ran away as only cowards do. And at the cost of lives of some members of his unit.”

“That is why true veterans are pissed off at how Walz chose to end his career, and then embellishing his years of service for political gain.” — Vietnam vet Len Swanson

My Take

I view these brazen attacks by Vance as a barometer of his true character, or lack thereof.

The bottom line is that all military service is honorable if carried out honorably, which is usually the case.

The only allegations proven against Walz is that he once said he used a weapon in combat; he did not. And he said his retiring rank was one level higher, which is false.

However, perhaps Walz deserves a pass here considering that Trump has told tens of thousands of lies, misstatements and half-truths since he first ran for president to the present day. This includes about 32,000 lies told during his presidency, according to a tally from The Washington Post.

Those who serve (or have served) in the military deserve the nation’s highest respect and admiration if they serve (or have served) honorably.

Final Thoughts

It’s debatable whether or not Walz served honorably due to the minor infractions which have surfaced per Vance’s attacks on him.

Different people disagree on this question. The answer depends upon whom you ask.

It’s interesting to me that Vance conveniently has no issue with Trump’s reported dodging of military service due to purported bone spurs in his foot (a claim still questioned today).

Trump is reported to have also joked that his personal equivalent of serving in Vietnam was avoiding sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) while dating models in Manhattan.

And let’s recall Trump’s unwarranted and shameful criticism of former Arizona Senator John McCain, a Republican.

McCain, a decorated Vietnam War hero who was captured and tortured, was lambasted by Trump — the former president said he likes soldiers who don’t get caught. Trump also refused to immediately lower the American flags at the White House to half-staff in the immediate aftermath of McCain’s death.

Therefore, some believe — including me — that Vance’s attacks on Walz make the Ohio senator a hypocrite, in addition to being an arrogant elitist (to put it gently).

It’s no wonder Trump selected Vance as his running mate.

What do YOU think? Please share your valuable comments below…
______________

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: You can learn more about me here. Also, check out my LinkedIn weekly newsletter on politics here. I’m a long-time registered independent voter who is unaffiliated with the Harris-Walz campaign or any political campaign. My experience in government and politics spans 25 years, including work at The White House, the Presidential Transition Office, two winning presidential campaigns, the U.S. Congress, and two federal agencies (OMB and EEOC).

—

This post was previously published on medium.com.

***

From The Good Men Project on Medium

What Does Being in Love and Loving Someone Really Mean?

My 9-Year-Old Accidentally Explained Why His Mom Divorced Me

The One Thing Men Want More Than Sex

The Internal Struggle Men Battle in Silence

***

Join The Good Men Project as a Premium Member today.

All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.

A $50 annual membership gives you an all access pass. You can be a part of every call, group, class and community.
A $25 annual membership gives you access to one class, one Social Interest group and our online communities.
A $12 annual membership gives you access to our Friday calls with the publisher, our online community.