In Falsely Smearing Walz, Vance Himself, Ironically, “Abandoned” and Betrayed a Fellow Veteran
by Bryan H. Wildenthal (August 15, 2024)
(See Copyright & Permissions Note on Vita & Contact page. See also my July 20 and October 11 essays on Vance.)
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, have apparently decided on a minimalist “high road” response to Senator J.D. Vance’s attacks on Walz’s military record.
I hope their strategy is correct. Many political experts argue that if you expend too much energy responding to false attacks, you may just draw more attention to them. Harris and Walz should certainly not have to personally stoop to respond any more than they already have.
But it remains frustrating and puzzling that we haven’t seen more high-ranking surrogates — Democratic leaders with combat experience and even bona fide war hero credentials — pushing back FAR more fiercely.
Those of us old enough to recall the false and outrageous “Swift Boating” of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry may be forgiven for worrying about the dangers of not responding quickly and aggressively enough.
As the New York Times has noted, even the “conservative-leaning editorial board of the Wall Street Journal … [has declared there may be] plenty of reasons to criticize Mr. Walz, but that his military record [is] not one of them. It quoted a New York Sun editorial that described the attacks as ‘thin gruel’.”
Here’s the bottom line: Vance and Walz both served with honor but only Vance dishonors himself by falsely attacking his fellow veteran over his service.
In my view, it is not enough for Vance’s attacks to flop like a dead fish as I hope and think they already have — much like his entire vice-presidential campaign.
Vance’s attacks deserve a nuclear political response. These attacks deserve to be utterly destroyed. Vance and his political boss — the draft-dodger Donald Trump — should pay a high political price for these unforgivable slurs against the honor of a patriotic American veteran.
Reviewing the Attacks
Vance began lobbing several attacks at Walz’s military record on August 7 (the day after Harris named him as her running mate), recycling partisan Republican smears from Walz’s successful campaign for Minnesota governor in 2018. The basic facts have been set forth in numerous articles, for example in the New York Times on August 7 and August 10 and a thoughtful Politico article on August 15.
The primary attack focused on Walz’s retirement in 2005 from the Army National Guard — after 24 years of voluntary service. A year later, in 2006, his former unit was deployed to Iraq as part of President George W. Bush’s invasion of that country. At the time Walz retired, as one news article noted, “there were vague expectations that the unit might deploy, but actual orders came several months later.”
On that basis, two former Guard colleagues of Walz, in a bad-faith partisan campaign attack in 2018, asserted that he “was a ‘sell out’ to his unit.” He has been accused, incredibly, of being a “coward” and even a “traitor.”
Vance dishonestly amplified the attack by falsely claiming both that Walz was “asked” to deploy to Iraq and that he “abandoned” his unit “right before they went to Iraq.” Both were deliberate lies brazenly invented by Vance. No one ever asked Walz to deploy to Iraq and the unit’s deployment didn’t happen until a year later.
Walz had already served a non-combat overseas deployment to Italy, in support of the Afghan War, two years before Vance’s own non-combat deployment to Iraq.
Vance also attacked Walz for referring to the fact that he rose to the rank of command sergeant major in the Guard (Vance left the Marines as a corporal). Walz retired as master sergeant, not command sergeant major, because he chose not to complete a lengthy correspondence course required to keep the higher rank in retirement.
It is Vance, not Walz, who again brazenly lied about this, falsely claiming that Walz “never achieved th[e] rank” of command sergeant major, when the simple fact is that Walz did achieve and serve in that rank while on actual military duty.
Vance and other Republicans have also dishonestly alleged that Walz has claimed he served in combat. Walz never made any such claim. On the contrary, he has repeatedly said he did not serve in combat. Vance, by the way, also never served in combat.
The most that Republicans have been able to come up with is a brief comment Walz made in 2018 about gun control and the problem of civilian access to military-style assault weapons: “We can make sure that those weapons of war that I carried in war is the only place where those weapons are at.”
On that sole basis, Vance accused Walz of “stolen valor” and asserted that he “lied about [his] military service,” and should be “ashamed” of doing so.
On the contrary, it is Vance who should be “ashamed” of his own dishonest and nonsensical attacks on his fellow veteran.
Walz did in fact carry weapons during his overseas wartime deployment, while never claiming he carried or fired any weapon in combat (more on that in a moment). The vast majority of military personnel who have served in America’s modern wars have never seen actual combat.
Keep in Mind the Context
The United States has not had a military draft since 1973, when Walz was nine years old and Vance was not even born yet. No American since then has had any obligation whatsoever to serve even a single day in the military. (Trump dodged the draft when it was still in effect during the Vietnam War.)
It is entirely to Walz’s credit that he volunteered to devote 24 years of his life — starting in 1981 at age 17 and ending at age 41 in 2005 — to serving in the U.S. military, just like it’s to Vance’s credit that he also chose to volunteer as a teenager.
Vance served four years in the Marine Corps from age 19 to 22 (2003–07). Vance was deployed to Iraq for six months (in 2005–06) in a public relations unit. He never served in combat.
Walz also served an overseas deployment, to Italy in 2003–04, in support of the Afghan War and as part of the broader post-9/11 War on Terrorism. Like Vance, Walz never served in combat.
Yet some Republicans have tried to erase Walz’s deployment from his record. Representative Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), not content to call Walz a “coward” because he retired after 24 years of service, falsely stated that “Walz never deployed.” In a fascinating projection of her own dishonesty onto the target of her reckless defamatory attacks, she accused Walz of “falsely claiming he did.”
Keep in mind that Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq was a catastrophic mistake — an unprovoked war of aggression waged on false pretenses that needlessly cost many thousands of Iraqi and American lives and continues to undermine, to this day, the stability of the entire Middle East.
The acclaimed presidential historian Jean Edward Smith, no starry-eyed liberal, has lionized Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Smith also wrote a balanced and thoughtful biography of George W. Bush, the concluding line of which declared that his Iraq invasion was “easily the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president.”
Trump and Vance themselves now claim to agree the Iraq War was a terrible mistake! It is not rationally disputable that Walz’s primary reason for retiring from the Guard in 2005 was so he could run for office — and he was elected to Congress in 2006 as an opponent of Bush’s Iraq War.
Walz was concerned about young Americans like Vance himself whose lives were needlessly put at risk by that ill-conceived war! Far from “selling out” or “abandoning” his unit, Walz was hoping to prevent them and others from ever being deployed to Iraq or sent on any similar misadventure!
If Vance’s Attacks Are Taken Seriously, Then VANCE Implies VANCE “Abandoned” His Fellow Marines!
Let me be clear: I myself do not think Vance was a “sell-out” because he chose to quit the Marine Corps in 2007 — though whether he sold out the people he grew up with by publishing a memoir in 2016 largely blaming them for their own economic struggles, after using his Yale law degree and connections to a far-right Silicon Valley billionaire to make a fortune as a venture capitalist, is another and more debatable question.
I myself do not think Vance “abandoned” his fellow Marines in 2007. He had every right to end his military service after four years to focus on completing his university education (paid for by his G.I. Bill benefits), and then going to law school.
But since Vance is attacking Walz for retiring from the Guard after TWENTY-four years of service, Vance opens himself up to a serious charge of hypocrisy.
Laughably, Vance’s partisan apologists now whine and complain that it’s somehow unfair to point out the facts of Vance’s own military record. I guess they should have thought of that before distorting and outright falsifying Walz’s record.
Vance could have chosen to re-enlist in the Marine Corps in 2007, the same year President George W. Bush ordered a massive “surge” of U.S. forces into Iraq as he doubled down on his invasion. If so, Vance might well have been redeployed to Iraq, quite possibly into combat (unlike his earlier non-combat deployment).
Vance could easily have volunteered for a second deployment, exactly what he attacks Walz for NOT doing!
If Vance’s response is that he already served a deployment, well, Walz had already served 24 years in the Guard and his own overseas deployment in support of the Afghan War.
Vance had other priorities in 2007, which was his right. But he could have chosen to stay in the Marines as he continued his education. I’ve been a law professor for more than 30 years. I’ve had many students who served in the military reserves or even on active duty during their entire time at school.
Vance could have used his law degree to enter the JAG Corps. Instead he used his education to go off to San Francisco to make a fortune as a venture capitalist. That was his right — though it’s fair to mention that he barely showed up for the job, distracted by his book tour promoting his memoir (for more details on his curious life odyssey, see my essay on Vance the “Faux-Bama”).
Keep in mind that Vance in 2007 was 22, single, and childless. Walz in 2005 was a generation older, married with a young daughter. He had a civilian job to focus on to help support his family. After 24 years of military service he was planning, at age 41, to run for elected office.
Does Vance contend Walz was not entitled to do so? Vance launched his own first run for elected office at age 36.
Walz also had ear surgery in 2005 to deal with hearing damage caused by long exposure to artillery noise. The Guard tried to force Walz to retire in 2002 because of his hearing problems.
As reported by Politico (my emphasis), Walz “was hauled before a medical retention board.” He “was retirement-eligible and could have bowed out with a pension. But instead he successfully argued he was medically fit to stay in the Guard.” He served another three years, during which he deployed overseas!
That destroys (to put it mildly) Vance’s defamatory narrative that Walz was somehow looking for a way to avoid deployment.
How much longer does Vance contend Walz had to continue volunteering as a citizen-soldier in the Guard? Another two years until 2007 (when Vance himself quit the Marines after only four years)? Another five years? Ten years? Is it like the Hotel California where “you can never leave”?
The imputation that there was somehow something inappropriate (even cowardly?) about Walz’s decision to retire in 2005 would be laughable if it were not so nasty, vile, and poisonously false.
Earth to Republicans: This is one of the most bizarre and preposterous personal attacks in American political history!
Walz’s “Weapons of War” Comment Was NOT a “Misstatement” and the “Stolen Valor” Allegation Is Bad-Faith BULLSHIT!
In response to Vance’s “stolen valor” attack, a spokesperson for the Harris-Walz campaign tepidly conceded that “[G]overnor [Walz] misspoke.”
If I were Walz my reaction would be “geez, thanks a lot!” Memo to the campaign team: If you want to win this race against a well-funded Republican machine, you’d better step it up a notch.
It is not difficult to imagine how a Trumpian Republican campaign spokesperson would respond to an identical attack on one of their nominees (not to imply we should mimic Trumpsters). My suggested draft response is far more accurate and temperate than anything an actual Trump spokesperson would probably say. For just two examples that prove my point, see here and here.
Anyway, let me offer this as a free model for how we might actually want to defend our nominees:
“This dishonest smear attack is devoid of decency and devoid of truth. [The nominee] has never suggested he served in combat. On the contrary, he has repeatedly and modestly emphasized that he did not serve in combat.”
“[The nominee] is rightly proud of his decades of military service. In an offhand comment about common-sense gun regulations, which some partisan political opponents have chosen to twist out of context, he merely noted the danger of untrained civilians having access to ‘weapons of war’ that he has in fact been trained to use and ‘carried’ in military service, including during wartime.”
“During [the nominee’s] decades of military service, the U.S. has been involved in seven separate overseas military conflicts. While he has often noted that he never served in combat, he was in fact deployed overseas (to one of our European allies) in support of the invasion of Afghanistan as part of the post-9/11 War on Terrorism.”
“[As the New York Times reported:] [The nominee’s] ‘artillery battalion was charged with guarding entry control points at Air Force bases that were supporting the war in Afghanistan as U.S. forces sought to capture or kill Al Qaeda’s leadership there’.”
“Guard duty obviously involves carrying weapons and [the nominee] was thus entirely accurate in stating that he ‘carried [them] in war.’ Carrying weapons has never been limited to active combat zones. He never said he carried or fired any weapons in combat. He was making a common-sense point about civilian use of dangerous military weapons.”
“To the extent there was any ambiguity or imprecision in this offhand verbal comment, which may have led to any confusion, [the nominee] is happy to clarify and confirm, as he has said countless times before and since, that he never personally served in combat.”
“[The nominee] deserves an apology from his opponent for this disgusting and shameful attack. No veteran should ever falsely impugn the service or patriotism of another veteran like this.”
End of lesson. Any questions?
A Sidenote on Historical Context in Journalism
I am an appreciative online subscriber to the New York Times, which is unquestionably one of the finest news organizations in the world — and media outlets like the Times, with genuine investigative and reporting depth and resources, are dwindling in this country and around the world a way that is truly frightening and dangerous to the future of democracy and the needs of well-informed citizens everywhere.
My many citations of the Times in this and other blog essays demonstrate my respect and appreciation for both its news reporting and its opinion journalism.
But like most news outlets, the Times sometimes falls short and I have to call it like I see it. In the fourth paragraph of its generally excellent article on Walz’s military service (many readers never get past the first few paragraphs of news articles), the Times offered this befuddling comment:
“Most of [Walz’s] service [1981–2005] covered a period when America was bruised from foreign entanglements and wary of sending troops into combat overseas for long stretches. And it ended … as the military ramped up for war after Sept. 11.”
This is a bizarrely inaccurate and misleading generalization. First of all, Walz’s service actually “ended” four years after the U.S. not only “ramped up for war” but actually invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and two years after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, which was also (though falsely) promoted as a response to 9/11.
What makes that fourth paragraph especially weird is that the article later mentions no fewer than five of at least seven wars in which the United States deployed ground troops overseas during the years covered by Walz’s service: the 1983 invasion of Grenada, the 1989 invasion of Panama, the Persian Gulf War in 1990–91, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan that launched America’s 20-year war in that country, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq that launched America’s eight-year quagmire there.
The reporter failed to mention America’s ill-advised military interventions in Lebanon (1982–84), resulting in the loss of nearly 300 U.S. Marines and French troops in the October 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, or in Somalia (1992–94), resulting in the October 1993 “Black Hawk Down” incident.
America doubtless was “bruised from foreign entanglements” both during this period and during the 30 years before Walz entered military service — thinking mainly of the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
But this history hardly suggests a nation “wary” of such “foreign entanglements” or of “sending troops into combat overseas”! Even “for long stretches” — thinking of Afghanistan and Iraq, which both lasted longer than the Korean War, the Afghan conflict surpassing even Vietnam to become America’s longest ever.
This history more accurately depicts a nation compulsively eager to embark on foreign adventures. For the record, I do think some of those interventions were justified, for example in Korea, Grenada, Panama, the 1990–91 Gulf War, and Afghanistan, even if sometimes badly mishandled.
Conclusion
It bears reiterating: Vance and Walz both served with honor. (Just in case some dishonest whiner tries to falsely claim I’m criticizing Vance’s service. I am not. And Walz himself certainly never has.)
Only Vance dishonors himself by falsely attacking his fellow veteran over his service. And by doing so, as this essay notes, Vance exposes his own record to fair scrutiny and calls into question his own choices about when to terminate his service.
(Update: An August 22 article suggests that Vance’s attacks have landed poorly with most veterans. But it also suggests the bitterly unfair irony that some are now falsely blaming Walz for participating in such attacks! A North Carolina Marine Corps veteran, a self-described “conservative,” was quoted saying: “It’s frustrating to see both candidates belittle one another’s service.” What is “frustrating” is that she failed to pay attention to the fact that Walz has never “belittled” Vance’s or anyone’s service! Only Vance has done so!)
What makes this whole sorry business so especially and frustratingly sad is that Vance and Walz actually share remarkable similarities in their personal lives and military service.
Both grew up in the Midwest in modest financial circumstances. Both enlisted in the military as teenagers right out of high school. Both focused on education, using their G.I. Bill benefits, and both rightly saw education as their ticket to greater success.
Both served overseas deployments at almost the same time during President Bush’s post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Walz in 2003–04, Vance in 2005–06). But neither ever served in combat. Both left the military during the Bush administration.
Both view Bush’s Iraq War as a terrible mistake. Walz, who was older and wiser at the time (old enough to be Vance’s father), saw that right away. Vance understandably did not as a gung-ho kid enlisting in the Marines. But with age and (some) wisdom, he eventually did. Both men are happily married to highly accomplished women, have raised or are raising children, and have won election to statewide office in their home states.
So why has Vance dishonored himself by attacking his fellow veteran in such a false and uncalled-for way at such a nasty personal level, unrelated to Walz’s political views or conduct in office? Why not focus instead on the issues?
It is EXACTLY this kind of BULLSHIT that turns so many Americans off politics!
Perhaps it is not such a mystery. As I commented in a recent essay, Vance is “a blatantly unqualified … light-weight extremist whose main appeal (for Trump) appears to be boot-licking endorsement of Trump’s election lies.” Vance has utter contempt for democracy (as noted in my July 20 essay) and, like Trump, poses a clear and present danger to our constitutional form of government. (Update: See also my October 11 essay on Vance.)
Vance is an embarrassment to himself, to the Marine Corps, and to the country he claims he wants to serve.
The Skeptical Professor 