Uproar over Walz's military record masks real concerns about what Trump 2.0 might mean for our military

It's good for America that two former non-commissioned officers (NCOs) are on the major parties’ tickets: as every servicemember knows, NCOs are the men and women who really run the military and get things done. And Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance’s four years as a Marine give him both the right to characterize his Democratic counterpart, Gov. Tim Walz’s 24 years of National Guard service, but also the responsibility as a fellow veteran to do so fairly.

Briefly, Vance accuses Walz of misrepresenting himself as having served in combat, of misidentifying himself as a retired command sergeant major, and of shirking his field artillery unit’s deployment to Iraq. 

As it stands, Vance’s criticisms of Walz are ill-founded. They distract from more important questions about the dangers a second Donald Trump administration would pose to the U.S. military, one of the few institutions retaining most Americans’ trust.

I SERVED WITH TIM WALZ AS A REPUBLICAN IN THE HOUSE. HE'LL BE A GOOD VICE PRESIDENT

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign admits that her running mate misspoke when he suggested he carried a rifle "in war," as his deployment supporting Operation Enduring Freedom did not bring him to Afghanistan. Walz served as the senior NCO of a cannon battalion when he retired, a billet coming with the title of command sergeant major, even if the soldier holding it is not in the grade of E9 and the rank of sergeant major. The record thus far indicates that Walz submitted his request to retire well before his Guard unit received mobilization and deployment orders, and in any case, the Army may (and sometimes does) decline soldiers’ requests to retire.  The service accepted Walz’s request.

The tempest in a teapot about Walz’s military record masks serious concerns about what Trump 2.0 might mean for the armed forces and the civilians they serve. Vance ought to address them.

Trump sought to invoke the Insurrection Act to use federal forces to put down riots in 2020. Per the indictment in the January 6th case, his advisers planned to invoke that act to use federal troops against protests that would have followed Congress’s failure to certify Joe Biden’s election victory. In 2018, Trump mused about ordering the military to shoot civilian migrants crossing the southwest border. What does Vance think is the active-duty military’s proper role in domestic law enforcement?

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Trump accused former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley of treason, and called for his execution, because Milley reassured his Chinese counterpart by accurately stating that the U.S. did not plan to start World War Three during the presidential transition. Would Vance support recalling retired general officers to duty to face courts martial and hangings?

Every servicemember swears an oath to defend the Constitution. In the Civil War at least 360,000 Union soldiers gave their lives specifically to preserve that Constitution. In 2022, Trump called for the "termination" of the Constitution in order to somehow return him to office on the basis of his false allegations of vote fraud. Does Vance, a veteran and Yale Law School graduate, believe there is any lawful reason to terminate the Constitution? What should the military’s response be if a commander-in-chief attempts to do so?

Trump previously denied making private comments derogatory of servicemembers killed or wounded in action. But on Thursday night, he publicly said that the civilian Medal of Freedom awarded to his campaign donor, casino owner Miriam Adelson, is "much better" than a military Medal of Honor, only because the latter is usually received posthumously or by servicemen "in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets." Does Vance agree with Trump that the Medal of Honor is somehow diminished by its award to those who also received Purple Hearts?

Walz deployed to Italy and not Afghanistan, he’s an E8 master sergeant in retirement after serving as a command sergeant major, and he retired from the Guard in the ordinary course before his unit deployed. 

Meanwhile, Vance’s running mate plans to involve the military in domestic law enforcement in deeply unwise ways. He wants to conduct Stalinist show trials of retired officers while speaking darkly of terminating the Constitution to advance his personal ambitions and disdaining those who bled for our country in combat. This does not sound like the Reagan-Bush Republican Party I grew up admiring and it would not look like the military in which I proudly served for 30 years.

Both Walz and Vance served honorably in uniform. Public debate before the election ought to focus not on these ex-servicemen’s pasts, but on what the future holds for the military and its role in the Republic.