tabbyplague®

Orange Phenom [14755]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 6329

Joined: 2004

I would caution anyone from defaming or propping up Tim Walz's military service

Aug 8, 2024, 11:59 AM

in support of Politics.

This will be long but I want to present what I think to be a balanced look at the hoopla around Tim Walz's military service.

Since Walz was selected as the VP for the Democratic ticket I have seen numerous posts laying out supposed controversies of Tim Walz's military service. When I see stuff like this - particularly to an individual with a long military career - I try my best to remove emotion and search for the truth regardless of politics. Having said that I'll lay out the facts as best as I have been able to gather them:

1. Tim Walz served honorably in the Army National Guard. He enlisted at the age of 17 in 1981 and retired from the Minnesota National Guard (MNG) in 2005.

2. Based on the years of his service - Walz served during several interesting periods of our military: Cold War, Gulf War, draw down military of the early '90s (i.e. "the Peace Dividend" period), and finally the War on Terror. Each of those time periods saw a different emphasis on the training, tactics, and doctrinal concepts adopted by the Army.

3. Walz started his career as an infantrymen and admin specialist in the Nebraska National guard. In 1996, after becoming an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer), Walz changed his MOS to an artillerymen and transferred to the MNG where he served in 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery (1/125 FA). From 1996 until his retirement in 2005, Walz remained in the 1/125 FA serving in multiple positions to include: firing battery chief, ops sergeant, and a Company First Sergeant. Walz culminated his military career by serving as the 1/125 FA's Command Sergeant Major (i.e. the Battalion CSM).

4. During Walz's career, he never served in combat. His only deployment outside the USA that I have found is his deployment to Italy in 2003 (longevity of this deployment is unknown) in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

5. Walz retired in 2005 from the MNG at the rank of Master Sergeant (i.e. MSG (E8)). In Walz's last assignment, he served in an E9 position as the 1/125's Battalion Command Sergeant Major (BN CSM (E9)) where he was "frocked" to the CSM rank. In other words - Walz was allowed to conditionally wear the CSM rank but in order to permanently attain the E9 rank he had to complete the required training from the US Army's Sergeants Major Academy (SGMA). "Frocking" is not an unusual occurrence in the military so Walz's conditional wearing of the E9 rank is not a rare thing. Walz did enroll as a non-resident/distance learning SGMA student but retired from the MNG before completing the required SGMA course. Therefore Walz retired as a MSG (E8) and not a SGM (E9).

Those are the simple facts of Walz's military service as I can determine them. Without seeing his actual service record and DD-214 I cannot really add much more to his military service than what I've listed above.

Now I have seen some comments being bandied about Walz's military career - both positive and negative - and have my own opinions based on what I've discerned from the facts above, comments from other Soldiers who served with Walz, and comments from Walz himself. The following is my own opinion but I will freely admit that my opinion is not a substitute for facts above.

There are essentially 2 "controversies" that I've seen from the right regarding Walz's career: his CSM rank and the timing of his retirement from the MNG.

1. Regarding Walz's CSM rank. Walz's claim that he was a CSM is true but not the whole truth. It is a fact that Walz served in the position of a CSM. But equally important to that fact is the truth that Walz never actually attained the permanent rank of Sergeant Major and is why he is a retired MSG.

Both the MSG (E8) and CSM (E9) ranks speak to having an above average, successful military career. However, the Sergeant Major rank is a special brotherhood and IMO no one should ever make the claim or infer that they are in that brotherhood if they never permanently attained that rank. I would be curious to see if Walz actually received E9 pay when he was in the 1/125 CSM position... IMO Walz should be more specific in his language when listing and discussing his experience as a CSM. He should be very clear that he is a retired MSG but that he served in a CSM position for a period of time with all the duties and responsibilities of that position for however many months/years he in fact did that job.

This may sound nit picky to the casual observer but to most veterans, particularly retired Sergeants Major this distinction actually matters. When most veterans list/discuss their military service rank - they don't conflate their positions with their actual permanent rank. An example would be Richard Winters from "Band of Brothers" - who served as a Battalion Commander but never made any claims or suggestions of being anything other than a Major. By itself the position of "Battalion Commander" infers the rank of Lieutenant Colonel but Winter's never let that be his service descriptor and was clear about his final Major rank. In Philadelphia, Kamala Harris introduced Waltz as a "Command Sergeant Major" (among other things) which at best is a partial truth because as discussed - Walz served in a CSM position for a limited time but never attained the rank permanently with his actual final retirement rank being a MSG.

2. Regarding Walz's retirement in 2005. Walz did his time and was well within his rights to leave the service for whatever reason he desired. I do, however, find the timing and circumstances around his decision to retire in 2005 more than a bit "weird". In my time on active duty, I have never known a serving CSM to drop their retirement papers before completing the requirements of the Sergeants Major rank. Likewise, I have never known someone in a CSM position to apply for retirement when his/her unit is pending a combat deployment. I'm not saying it hasn't happened but I've just never seen in it happen. To the contrary - I have seen the exact opposite where a unit CSM intentionally "pulled back" their approved retirement orders in order to go on a combat deployment with their unit.

Overall I find the Walz situation very strange. I don't know why someone would accept a CSM position, knowing that they would retire prior to completing the SGMA and serving the time required to do so (talking years here). That in itself makes no sense to me if a person's motivation for accepting the position is truly about "service" and not "self interest". Furthermore I cannot understand why a CSM would not only WANT to go to combat with their unit, but feel OBLIGATED by a sense of duty to lead and guide their unit through combat once becoming aware of a pending deployment - having already submitted a retirement request or not. Simply put - Walz's actions of seeking retirement while serving as the unit CSM in 2005 are not what I would expect or have seen in my own military experience.

To expand on this a little further....A CSM is the literal heartbeat of a unit. They are the senior enlisted Soldier in the Battalion and as such provide the example for all the enlisted Soldiers (as well as officers) to follow. The special relationship and counsel of a CSM to their Battalion Commander is INDISPENSABLE. Any questions as to what a CSM is/does for unit - then just look at CSM Plumley from "We Were Soldiers Once... and Young"

Walz had been in the 1/125 for 9 years having worked his way up through the ranks in the unit to becoming the top enlisted Soldier of the unit. As such he was intimately aware of how the unit functioned, its strengths/weaknesses, and its personnel. Moreover, I cannot imagine he did not have strong, if not "fatherly" feelings towards the Soldiers in his Battalion. So, when the unit finally gets a combat order it is simply unfathomable to me that a CSM would not do everything in their power to deploy with that unit - retirement plans or not. We train our whole careers to go to combat and for one of the top 2 leaders of the Battalion to either subsequently drop a retirement request or continue full steam ahead with a previous retirement plan when his Soldiers get the call to go to combat is truly a senior unit leader behavior of which I'm unaccustomed. Even though there is nothing illegal, or corrupt about Walz's decision to retire in 2005 in the face of a pending combat deployment, I do find such a behavior from a senior leader to be contrary to the Army's "selfless service" value. IMO the timing of Walz's retirement may have been an unfortunate coincidence with the units pending deployment but his follow through of retirement sure looks and smells like a personal "selfless service dodge" from a Senior military leader perspective.

There is nothing wrong with military veterans talking about and using their military experience as a molding and informing experience for a policy or political position. In fact, I wish more of our politicians had military experience and would apply their lessons learned from the military to making our country a better place. However, a veteran must also be very careful not to overstate their military service or experience through inference, embellishment, or an outright lie. The veteran should be very careful to not abuse their "veteran" status when running and serving in political office.

Tim Walz should be proud of his 24 years of military service. He should be commended for his service and no one should diminish that service through BS attacks and outlandish characterizations. Walz is certainly entitled to state he willingly served and that the values and experiences he gained from military service are informing of his political positions. The descriptions I've seen of Walz being a "traitor" or a "deserter" are simply partisan gaslighting BS that have no place in a serious look at his military career. Those words have very specific criminal meanings and in no way, shape or form are they applicable to Walz's service in the military. Having said that, I do think it is fair to question Walz's personal motivation for stepping away from his CSM position while not having completed the SGMA or deploying with his unit as that is not a norm from a senior NCO (in my experience). It's also fair to disapprove of his given reason - to pursue a personal career in politics. However, Walz's actions are absolutely not that of a traitor or a deserter and any claims as such are pure, baseless BS.

Lastly, Walz himself must be careful to not make his service and experiences sound like something that it wasn't - including conflating serving in the CSM position with the actual permanent attainment of that rank. He also must not make comments like this: "We can make sure those weapons of war, THAT I CARRIED IN WAR, is the only place where those weapons are at." In this statement, Walz is abusing his military experience via a lie to cheaply bolster his political position on AR-15's. It is simply a fact that Tim Walz never experienced combat and to claim otherwise is a lie. Instead, it should have been enough for Walz to have said "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I handled and trained with in 24 years of Army service, are not on our streets." Now I would very much disagree with his opinion and position on the AR-15 but the statement would at least be an accurate description of his military service towards his political stance.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

or anything that needs further explanation.

He served honorably for 24 years.

He was a CSM at the end of his career, and the designation of being "retired" as CSM is a bureaucratic issue that impacts retirement/pension, not whether or not he served as a CSM at the time (which he did).

He put in for retirement before his unit was called up. He put in papers to run for political office in February, 2005. The National Guard was informed in March of the possibility of being called up within two years (possibility within two years isn't full knowledge on if or when you'll be called). He retired in May, 2005. His unit was called up in July 2005. The timeline is not an issue, except to JD Vance, who is lying about Walz deserting his unit.

Walz has always said he was not in combat. The comment about carrying guns "in war" is technically correct, because he was deployed to Italy in 2003 as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. At worst, it's imprecise. However, he's always made clear he was not in combat.

The issue isn't Tim Walz' service. The issue is Republicans going after a Democrat and smearing his service, which is reprehensible on their part.

I would caution anyone from defaming or propping up Tim Walz's military service

Bravo

Regarding timing of retirement . Can active military run for Congress?

I'm not sure if Compo 1 (Active) can or not, but yes, Compo's 2&3 (NG & Reserve)

Thx***

He is the one that claimed to "carry weapons of war, in war".

Did you read his entire post? Not being sarcastic, but Tabby did say...

I did. My point is that he brought this on himself. By LYING.***

I think you've missed the point of tabby's post...carry on then.***

I'm not propping him up nor defaming his career. I am calling him a liar.***

If this is what you're hanging your hat on,

Being extreme left is not enough?***

A couple things:

Those are sponsored bills; now do bills in which he said "yea".

You're free to define "extreme" however you like.

Likewise.***

Re: A couple things:

"Drift" to what...? What are their policies? All I've seen is identity politics.***

.he said, with no irony whatsoever.***

Please... Show my drift. I know it. Do you?***

That's funny, right there.

He's a politician, it's a given he's a liar. Just like the other 3 main players.***

So you don't support politicians who lie?***

Another absurd deflection incoming.***

TIL Keowee wants his politicians to be truthful

Re: He is the one that claimed to "carry weapons of war, in war".

Well said, and I agree with your analysis.***

Thank you for this post and your perspective.

That is a truly fair and balanced take

it all comes across as a contrived dick-measuring contest

BINGO***

Covfefe

Re: I would caution anyone from defaming or propping up Tim Walz's military service

Re: I would caution anyone from defaming or propping up Tim Walz's military service

Re: I would caution anyone from defaming or propping up Tim Walz's military service

Re: I would caution anyone from defaming or propping up Tim Walz's military service

Walz readily sold out hard-acquired honor in XChange for Political ambition

Cliff notes, please***

Walz has absolutely nothing to apologize for....

Re: I would caution anyone from defaming or propping up Tim Walz's military service

TigerBoard POTD