I generally avoid jumping headlong into the daily political sewage of a Presidential campaign, but sometimes the subject matter gets too close to home, and the level of feces gets so high, I just can’t resist.
This is one of those times.
Vice President Kamala Harris has chosen Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate in the 2024 campaign for President. Among the personal achievements attesting to his leadership is a career in the US Army National Guard, reaching the rank of Command Sergeant Major (CSM), the highest enlisted rank in the service, a feat which is indeed rare. You don’t achieve that rank without impressing many people for many different reasons, and it is indeed something to celebrate and honor.
Predictably, Governor Walz’ record has come under attack. These charges against him surfaced during his first campaign for the US House of Representatives, and again when he ran and won for Governor. However, the scrutiny of a national campaign is unlike any other. What are the charges?
First, he made an off-hand claim, during a 2018 meeting to consider new gun control restrictions in his state, that “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war (emphasis added), are only carried in war.” Gov. Walz never served in war, or even in a war zone. He did deploy to Europe during Operation Enduring Freedom, but saw nothing even vaguely resembling combat. The charge against him is “stolen valor,” that is claiming the honor due only combat veterans. He has made this claim only once, and it was about the weapons, not his service. I am inclined to pass this off as an inartful phrase. If more such video clips emerge (remember, scrutiny), it would be a major problem.
Second, he has referred to himself as a retired CSM, which is incorrect. Upon retirement, his rank reverted to Master Sergeant, as he had not completed the full requirements for the higher rank. As a person who left reserve duty as a Major, I can assure you my permanent rank is Captain, as I did not meet the requirements to retain the title of field grade officer. It’s a technicality, but not one to be taken lightly: it will say “CPT, USA” on my niche in Arlington National Cemetery. Walz has at times referred to himself as a former CSM, which is correct. Again, I believe we should give him the benefit of the doubt on this, as it is a technical issue about which only those very familiar with ranks and privileges would know or care.
Finally, Walz was CSM for a US Army National Guard artillery battalion when he retired. The unit was subsequently deployed into combat in Iraq, leading to the charge he abandoned his unit on the verge of deployment. There are things one needs to understand about this situation. First off, the battalion CSM is considered one of the “top three” in the unit: the commander (a Lieutenant Colonel), the executive officer (usually a Major), and the CSM, the senior enlisted person. This is the leadership team and the US Army makes it point to ensure the leadership team is intact before deploying a unit to combat: it undermines unit morale when the troops see a senior leader leaving when they are going into a fight. It can’t always be avoided, but it is a rare event.
A US Army Reserve or National Guard deployment is negotiated long in advance of formal orders. It begins with the Department of the Army contacting the unit and engaging in a ‘frank and earnest’ discussion about deployment. Yes, your unit readiness report is great, but how is morale? Your leadership team is excellent, but are they all ready to go? CSM, what about the troops: are there many pregnancies among the spouses, or children with special needs or any other considerations weighing on the deployment? How will it affect the community, as these are citizen-soldiers? Only when the Army leadership has completed a face-to-face discussion with the unit leadership is a deployment order agreed to and issued.
Much is made of the date of then CSM Walz’s retirement, and the fact it predates the deployment order. Now you know why that is irrelevant. If you don’t believe me, look into the statements from CSM Walz’s colleagues at the time, who explain that he confided in them he was considering retiring to run for Congress in lieu of deploying. So he knew about the probable deployment, knew what it meant to his unit, and chose to leave. He is also quoted by these colleagues as indicating he could do more for the common good in Congress than in the battalion. There is a ring of truth to that statement, if also a whiff of ambition.
There are four hundred and thirty five members of the US House of Representatives, and I can guarantee you every new one is last in line for influence. It is not that they are unimportant, just that their prospects to make a difference are in the future. There is only one Command Sergeant Major in a battalion, responsible for being the senior enlisted advisor to the Commander. They are critical to the success or failure of the mission, as the Army is more dependent on its non-commissioned officer corps than any other service. Being the Battalion CSM of a deployed unit in combat is the pinnacle of an enlisted redleg’s (artilleryman’s) career.
Those charging Gov. Walz with cowardice or desertion go too far; there is no evidence to support that. And yes, the Army deployed his unit and it performed its mission with a replacement as CSM; that is what the Army does. Yet the fact remains that he cites his military service proudly, while at the critical moment, he did not answer the call. He probably chose wisely: his post-military political career has been quite successful.
Sometimes military leaders have to make terrible choices, like which part of the unit to sacrifice to save the rest. Sometimes they have to make sacrifices themselves. Then-CSM Walz did not “abandon” his unit. At the critical moment, heading into combat for which he had spent a career preparing, he consciously chose to pursue a more promising future. Whatever choice leaders make tells you much about them as leaders, much more than what rank they wore, or what office they achieved.
Pat, well-reasoned, as always.
I would add that, as a drilling Naval Reserve Officer at the time (2006-7), and Officer in Charge of my unit, I learned in the post-9/11 timeframe of impending mobilizations to either Iraq or Afghanistan. I immediately started to counsel my people about the reality of the mobilization and tried to ensure either their readiness to mobilize OR their rapid action to retire IN ADVANCE OF RECIEVING ORDERS. I made it understood that if we were in uniform and drilling, we were — in effect — stating our willingness and readiness to mobilize when called. Several officers, when faced with this reality chose — for personal or family or civilian business reasons — to retire from the reserves BEFORE orders came in. That was the right and honorable thing to do, not wait until ordered then try to get out of the orders somehow. Insofar as I know, when the orders did come down, all of us remaining answered the call.
For my own part, I asked my wife LONG in advance of any orders coming, to make sure she understood what was involved and was on board with it. I had three small children at the time, and they were in no position to consent or refuse. (I still have them, but they are all grown). I hadn’t reached retirement age yet and had planned to put in a full career and retire. If she had said no, I was prepared to resign my commission. To her everlasting credit she said yes, and I started to make arrangements for when I would, eventually, be mobilized.
I was also at that time in civilian life an executive with DEA, a responsibility I would have to leave behind if called up. My leaders, including the Presidential appointee at the top, offered to reach out to get me out of mobilization. I politely declined. I explained that I wore the uniform and had sworn an oath and didn’t WANT to get out of it. I did not then know when or to where the orders would come — eventually.
Sometime later, in 2007, the orders came, to a combat zone in Afghanistan. To be clear, I was not going into infantry, but I would be armed, and did come under enemy fire. I was called up to active duty as a 50 year-old Naval Officer, and I went. I came back with all my fingers and toes — thanks be to God — but I am still dealing with the career disruption and strain on my wife and children. I retired after 22 years in uniform in 2013.
I accurately portray my military service at all times and try not to comment on the military service — or lack thereof — of others. It saddens me to see military service become such a partisan issue.
Pat,
Excellent analysis of parts of the controversy.
There is one aspect of this issue that I haven’t heard anyone address so I’ll hop in and see what people think.
Gov. Walz said, “We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, are only carried in war.” One thing I take away from this statement is that the governor is either ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead. And since I do not believe he is ignorant I can only assume he is trying to mislead.
In terms of the “weapons of war” that Gov. Walz wants, “only carried in war,” he is referring to the nebulous “assault rifle” category of weapons, most commonly associated with the AR-15 rifle. Having spent as long as he did in the reserves, and as a senior NCO, he certainly knows that no American soldier went to “war” with an AR-15. He knows for a fact that our standard infantry rifle was an M-4 rifle, and that’s the one our personnel went to “war” with.
He also knows that the M-4 (as opposed to the AR-15) has full auto capabilities. My assumption based on his comments is that he wants people to equate the two and think that AR-15s are automatic weapons/weapons of war. They are not. They are the most popular rifle sold in the United States. It should be noted that rifles, all rifles not just “assualt rifles” normally account for less than 10% of all the homicides in the US (3% in 2020 per the FBI). and that since 1968, legally obtaining a fully automatic weapon of any kind is extremely difficult and strictly controlled by the Bureau of ATF&E.
My whole point is that Governor Walz is an intelligent individual and knows the difference between the “weapons of war” that his unit, without him, went to war with, and the rifle he is trying to restrict. In my opinion that is disingenuous.
Thanks for the time.
Jack