Walz Criticized for His Characterization of Military Service

In early 2016, Tim Walz participated in a bipartisan discussion on CSPAN where he expressed his opposition to President Barack Obama’s plan to decrease troop levels abroad. During this panel, Walz was introduced as someone who had enlisted in the Army National Guard at 17 and retired as Command Sergeant Major after 24 years of service, including a deployment in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Walz nodded along, despite having no service record in Afghanistan, as indicated by military documents and his own admissions. This incident highlights a pattern of inaccuracies regarding his military service that critics have noted over the years.

Since being selected as the running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris, Walz has faced allegations of “stolen valor” from his opponent, Senator J.D. Vance, an accusation with serious legal repercussions. Walz has been adamant about his military record, declaring at a recent rally in Los Angeles that he is “damn proud” of his service.

“These guys are even attacking me or my record of service,” he remarked during his speech. “And I just want to say, I’m proud to serve my country, and I always will be.”

While there is no proof that Walz has committed the crime of stolen valor, a review of his past interviews, speeches, and campaign records reveals that both journalists and constituents have sometimes been left with misconceptions about his military career. These inaccuracies have, at times, gone unchecked, including instances where he did not clarify his lack of actual combat service in Afghanistan and repeated claims about attaining a rank with which he did not retire. There was even a time in 2018 when he boasted of carrying weapons “in war,” a point his campaign later described as a misstatement.

In his 2016 CSPAN interview, Walz explained that his unit often had responsibilities overseas, focusing on ensuring troops and their families received the necessary support. However, his military record, while filled with contributions, is nuanced and intricate, which has led to confusion among viewers.

A spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign asserted, “After 24 years of military service, Governor Walz retired in 2005 and ran for Congress, where he was a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform. As Vice President of the United States, he will continue to champion our veterans and military families.”

The opinions about Walz’s service among those who served with him in the National Guard vary significantly. Thomas Behrends, who commanded Walz’s battalion after his retirement, has long been a vocal critic. He claims Walz misrepresented his rank and criticized his choice to retire before the unit’s deployment to Iraq.

“When he left, it was like we had lost a key leader,” Behrends expressed in an interview. Walz maintains he retired to pursue a congressional run and had not received formal notice of deployment at the time; National Guard records indicate that the battalion received an alert order for deployment two months after Walz retired.

However, it appears Walz might have been aware of his unit’s potential deployment before retiring. Shortly after he announced his congressional candidacy in March 2005, Walz mentioned that his unit was under consideration for a “possible partial mobilization.” He stated he felt a duty to prepare his troops for Iraq and to serve them in any way required. He even expressed commitment to continue his campaign, regardless of a possible deployment.

In November 2005, shortly after his unit was deployed, Walz won his congressional race. Some former service members have defended him, sharing insights into the gravity of his decision to retire. Allan Bonnifield, who served with Walz until his retirement, noted that Walz deliberated heavily about leaving, signifying it was not an easy choice.

Records indicate that Walz stayed in the National Guard for nearly three years post notification of his retirement eligibility, suggesting he carefully weighed his options. Bonnifield argued that the criticism of Walz is exaggerated and emphasized that he had a commendable military career.

In the National Guard, Walz officially assumed the position of command sergeant major in April 2005, shortly before his retirement. However, he did not serve long enough in the role to retain the title afterward. Despite this, Walz has consistently referred to himself as a “retired command sergeant major,” which has sparked further controversy.

In 2016, Behrends even wrote to Walz, expressing disappointment that he continued to use that title. According to Behrends, such a rank demands something earned through service. Following criticism, the Harris-Walz campaign acknowledged various misunderstandings in how Walz’s military contributions have been portrayed. The campaign has attributed any misleading statements to simplistic oversights.

Overall, while some individuals feel Walz has overstated his military background, others believe he has done commendably throughout his service years. This ongoing debate raises questions about the importance of accurate representation in discussions about military history.

Source: ABC News