The following was republished with permission from Cynical public.
The past few days have been a whirlwind of controversy surrounding Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz's military service record. My X account has had the most traffic it's ever seen since I've talked about this topic at length, and I thought it would be a good idea now to take a deep breath and sort of summarize where we are in this controversy. I know for a fact that the veteran community is fired up about this issue, but I feel like many in the non-veteran community don't know what to think given the competing arguments on both sides of the political aisle.
I would like to share my personal experiences and thoughts as a retired Army Colonel and a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan. What I hope civilians understand is this: the issue is not the number of years Walz served, or when he submitted his retirement paperwork, or what his final rank was, or even, as a proposal autonomous, if it ever did. went to fight No, the problem is the unique and special position of trust he held when he decided to walk away from his soldiers, his unit, and his nation. I will explain.
But first, some facts. There are all kinds of facts and misinformation on this topic, so I want to highlight the most basic and most important facts that even the most rabid Democrat can't dispute:
- Vouchers served for 24 years in the Minnesota Army National Guard, retiring with the rank of sergeant major (an “E-8” in the Army).
- In the spring of 2005, Walz was serving as the command sergeant major (an “E-9”) of the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery, a Minnesota Army National Guard battalion that is part of the 34th Division of Infantry
- Also in the spring of 2005, Walz and his battalion received a warning order that the battalion would deploy to Iraq. (We know this because Walz's congressional campaign he told us at that time.)
- Knowing that his unit was being deployed, Walz decided to retire from the National Guard in May 2005 to continue his campaign for Congress.
- Serving members of the National Guard and Reserve also routinely serve in Congress, and always have. Tulsi Gabbard is an excellent recent example. Walz didn't necessarily need to retire to run for Congress. However, a deployment to Iraq that he might have chosen to participate in would have effectively prevented him from campaigning.
- Walz's retirement meant he has not fulfilled a contractual service commitment he entered willingly when the Army selected him to attend the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. As a result, the Army lowered its official retirement rank from E-9 to E-8.
These are facts. Now let's explain what was so egregious about what Walz did.
So Walz retired when he was allowed to and ran for Congress, what's the big deal, right? Well, if Walz had been an E-8 slug holding some clerical job in the 34th Infantry Division, counting down his days until retirement, and if he had opted for statutory retirement instead of going to the Iraq, nobody would care. But that's not what happened. Walz was a COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR (“CSM”), and that makes all the difference in the world.
A CSM is the senior NCO of an Army battalion. He is the most trusted advisor to the battalion commander. He is the standard for all other NCOs and junior soldiers in this battalion. All eyes are on him. He is as close to a god on Earth as a soldier could be. The rank and position of a CSM is exceptionally difficult to attain: very few NCOs achieve it.
More importantly, assuming the duties of a CSM is a sacred trust. The 500+ soldiers in your battalion rely on you to train them and keep them up to a level where they can fight, win and survive in combat. Those soldiers put their faith, trust and lives in your hands. I'll say it again: this is a sacred trust.
Now I will be blunt. In the spring of 2005, Walz walked away from that sacred trust by leaving his post when he learned of an upcoming deployment to Iraq. He was a coward. He was a quitter. He put his own interest above that of his soldiers. It was Petty Officer Courtney Massengale (if you know, you already know).
It is at this point that I would like to share a relevant personal anecdote to explain what it means when a CSM leaves on the eve of combat. When I was a battalion commander, a few weeks before we were about to deploy to Afghanistan, and after we had done our intense rotation of the Joint Readiness Training Center with the equipment we were carrying in the fight, my CSM was relieved by the division commander. general because the CSM did something particularly stupid involving a junior enlisted soldier and got caught.
I can't describe how disturbing this was. It was like having my battalion's beating heart ripped out. We got through it, but it was difficult, and it upset the entire NCO chain, as we had to promote several NCOs up the chain of responsibility to new positions they hadn't been trained in, all because our CSM be relieved This disruption could have resulted in combat deaths (thankfully it didn't). If you are an Army battalion commander, NO ONE is more important than your CSM. So yes, I understand the impact of Walz's cowardice better than almost everyone else on this planet.
Someone asked me in good faith whether or not Walz simply left one type of service for a higher level of service in Congress. I thought long and hard about an appropriate analogy to answer this question, and I finally came up with one: What Walz did is the moral equivalent of a mother leaving her five pre-teen children in an orphanage in the middle of the night in order to to run for Congress. Yes, it's that bad.
Walz's ignominy was more than deserting his troops; it also reflects some kind of personal deficit in his character and make-up. For almost every professional soldier I've ever met, the thought of not going to war with their unit is abhorrent.
Please let me tell you another story to illustrate. One of the things the Army makes a battalion do when it deploys to war is leave the US with a “Rear Detachment”. It is a very small group of soldiers who cover important administrative and logistical matters at home. The Rear Detachment is also the center for the “Family Readiness Group” led by the civilian spouse, keeping spouses and children informed and, God forbid, helping families if one of your soldiers is killed or wounded.
There are different schools of thought as to who a battalion commander should leave in charge of this rear detachment. Some battalion commanders leave behind their worst lieutenant or captain. When my battalion went to Afghanistan, I chose to leave my best first lieutenant behind. Work is so important.
When I called this lieutenant into my office to tell him that he had been left behind to command the rear detachment, this stoic, tough, physical training lieutenant, Jumpmaster, Ranger-qualified, and combat medic lieutenant went broke and overwhelmed. – he cried, tears and all. He begged me not to leave him behind. Being left behind while the rest of the battalion and his company deployed was a big heartbreak for him.
He ended up doing a great job as commander of the later Detachment, but I'm not sure he ever forgave me. Most military leaders are like that. Retirement dates will be extended. They will hide the wounds. They will cancel a permanent change of station transfer or a desirable military school. Hell, many will even get divorced rather than not deploy to war. They will do all these things to avoid not deploying with their unit.
True military leaders are like this: the most dishonorable thing imaginable is not going to war with your comrades. But not Tim Walz. He was a battalion command sergeant major, the most senior and most important NCO in a battalion, and he bailed, ran and hid instead of deploying with his soldiers to Iraq and doing his duty.
So right now I can hear my fellow aging Democrats yelling, “WHAT'S UP CADET BONESPURS, HMMMM!?!?” To which I say easily: Trump did not work. Neither did Clinton. Neither does Obama. Neither does Biden. Neither did Harris. But cutting and running in front of the enemy and abandoning the troops you swore to lead AS YOUR SUPERIOR OFFICER is 1,000 times worse than never serving.
Incredibly, it gets worse. Not only did Walz abandon his sacred duty to his soldiers to pursue a political goal of his own, he went on to politically brag about the honorable leadership as CSM that he never provided. he took the credit for a rank that he never fulfilled he lied about his war service, and he did all this cynically for no other reason than personal gain. This is despicable stolen value and reflects this man's lack of honor, integrity and good character.
If Master Sergeant (ret.) Walz could not be trusted to fulfill his duties to his Soldiers, his unit and his nation in 2005, how can he be trusted to be Vice President in 2025? Tim Walz is not qualified to be a municipal dog catcher, let alone Vice President of the United States of America.
Walz's heinous behavior boils the blood of veterans who left a part of their souls in Mosul, Fallujah, Kandahar, Ramadi or Khowst, or any of the other cities or open spaces where their friends died. Veterans and non-veterans, please vote accordingly. Keep the heat on, please.
If all it does is get 10,000 veterans to come to Pennsylvania or Wisconsin who wouldn't have otherwise, we win. This is a vital issue: make Walz and the Democrats pay for their perfidy.
The Federalist verifies the identities of those who post with us anonymously.
You can follow Cynical Publius on X at @CynicalPublius.
Español de Venezuela 
English 