A strong point of the military is the burdensome documentation that accompanies just about all official acts, enlistments, promotions, schools, awards, decorations, obligations, etc.
Government Civilian Service is similarly documentation intensive for all official acts. Official acts-by their nature-are not ambiguous or interpretable.
I may have enlisted in the Army in 1975, but the official record reveals a Basic Entry Service Date (also Pay Entry Basic Date) of 19 September 1975 and a Basic Active Service Date of 29 Sep 1975. Those dates are very significant when you consider the Vietnam-era GI Bill terminated 1 October 1975 (fiscal year 1976.)
Now suppose I or my recruiter made a mistake and my BASD ended up being 2 October 1975. Well in that case I would have been the definition of SOL (sorry, out of luck-although I might have snuck in because of my PEBD…) Woulda, coulda, shoulda-but you didn’t!
I may have hired into Government Federal Service in 1994, but my Entrance On Duty Date (EOD) was 15 July 1994: exactly, unambiguous and not debatable…
The controversy that has grown up around the legacy of Governor Tim Walz’ description of his military service can similarly be described in terms of unambiguous, documented events that are cut and dry.
I say controversy because anytime someone in the military or government creates difficulty for themselves by misstating, embellishing or making up some detail about their service-while overlooking others-there is almost always somebody who can do the “there I was” testimony to contribute to the understanding.
I’m not a big fan of the term “stolen valor.” At some point over the decades, we’ve had a number of people outed for adding lettuce and cabbage to their uniforms that they had not earned or been awarded. Those are not harmless acts or lies. They represent an ethics and integrity breach that a chain of command and ultimately a commander must deal with-to help the soldier get back on track-and to set an example to others that such behavior cannot-and will not-be tolerated.
The somewhat strange part of the Tim Walz saga is not that he associated himself with a rank that he knew he had not earned-for decades-at high levels of our government, or that he allegedly retired in lieu of deploying with the unit he was the senior enlisted soldier for, or that he suddenly and strangely retired-failing to complete the obligations he signed up to when he accepted conditional promotion to the rank of Command Sergeant Major-an act that most certainly cost some other willing and capable soldier the opportunity.
The above is all somewhat odd. But the strangest part is why are we being inundated with it now? You would think the outcry in Minnesota over his use of a rank he did not achieve would have been deafening and something he would have been forced to address before.
He could say he served as a Command Sergeant Major with no quibble, but his retired rank is clearly Master Sergeant-and it’s not even debatable.
We have a good presentation of the issues and facts already posted on AFNN by Mike Thiac. I agree with Mike that we should wait for the facts to come out. However, the view of this issue from the “inside”-as retired military (and government) is a bit different and my aim and goal since this story broke is to provide information to my civilian friends who might dismiss this as “politics, no big deal.”
Rather than get into the weeds and examine and dissect each point in turn, I think it is important to hear from his peers, soldiers, leaders and commanders. My saying for life when it comes to an opinion on soldiers is whether I would “share a foxhole with them,” or whether they would be “in my foxhole.”
Command Sergeant Major Doug Julin was Walz’ immediate supervisor at the time. RedState’s article detailing His CNN interview debunked a lot of the narratives that had been put forth regarding the timeline and Walz’ actions. From the piece:
Julin recalled a March 2005 meeting where Walz “came in, we sat and talked, he told me, he says, I have not been nominated, I am going forward with the battalion. I said, ‘Good, let’s go.’ We got the team built, and we’re starting to build the team out there.”
Fast forward to June and, “I walked into the team, the meeting hall, and Tom Behrends was there, and I asked Tom what he was doing there. And that’s when he informed me that he had quit. The issue that came out of this was, first of all, how did Tim Walz quit without discussing with me, because I was his next level of leadership, or responsibility, or supervisor.”
There is a bit of an ambiguity with the timing of Walz’ retirement, as he maintains he only re-enlisted for four years after 9-11, but unit personnel maintain the re-enlistment was for six years. Why does it matter? Because the six years would have given him sufficient time to complete his obligations to achieve Command Sergeant Major rank, but it would have also resulted in him deploying to Iraq with his unit.
Command Sergeant Major Tom Behrends replaced Walz. His interview with Newsmax about the situation, timing and his thoughts regarding Walz are none too charitable. From the piece:
“Well, you know, the order came out in March of 2005 that that battalion was going to be part of the brigade to go to Iraq,” he said. “So it was like the warning order basically saying, Well, you’re going to be going on a trip, get your will together, you know, get your bags packed, tell your family, do all that stuff. And then, you know, basically two months later in May, I think it was May 16 actually, or close to that time when they had drills, then the rumor came out that he had turned in his papers and turned in his gear and slithered down the stairs and quit after 24 years.”
Another RedState article documents the opinion of Walz’ unit chaplain, CPT Corey Bjertness, who summed things up for those who served: “In our world, to drop out after a WARNORD [warning order] is issued is cowardly, especially for a senior enlisted guy.”
Not to be outdone, Walz’ former Battalion Commander LTC Jim Kolbe added context to the story in this article by Woke Spy, the bottom-line being:
“I do not regret that Tim Walz retired early from the Minnesota Army National Guard, did not complete the Sergeants Major Academy, broke his enlistment contract or did not successfully complete any assignment as a Sergeant Major,” he wrote. “Unwittingly, he got out of the way for better leadership. Thomas Behrends was the right leader at the right time. He sacrificed to answer the call, leaving his family, business and farming-partner brother to train, lead and care for soldiers.”
Kolb added that “when the demands of service and leadership at the highest level got real,” Walz “chose another path” instead.
These would be the witnesses to Walz service. There are others, but my intention is not to pile on here, but to provide context from those senior leaders who served with him and who would know what went down.
This Federalist article outlines many of the details that stand out to those of us who were in the military, particularly those of us who spent some enlisted time. The “official” timing of his promotion is truly very strange: from the piece:
Digging deeper into the NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service for Walz, his date of rank for his promotion to command sergeant major (E9) was April 1, 2005. His date of discharge was May 16, 2005. Only 46 days had elapsed. Given the National Guard is a part-time job, one would be forgiven for wondering if this was even enough time to have new insignia sewn on all his uniforms. The official government paperwork marking his demotion was processed approximately four months later on Sept. 10.
Another Federalist article covers how congressional representative Tony Gonzales reacted when he discovered that Tim Walz was not the most senior enlisted to serve in congress: it was him! There is something distasteful about things devolving to a level that has former military publicly touting these accomplishments. However, in Gonzales’ defense that is a very proud achievement and against Walz is the fact that he embellished an accomplishment that he knew to be tainted and false. From the piece:
In a tweet Thursday evening, Gonzales said, “I proudly served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, with multiple deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq — retired as a Master Chief. Yes, that makes me the highest ranked enlisted service member to EVER serve in Congress. A claim Gov. Walz has falsely paraded around. It’s important to call out DISHONESTY.” He went on to call for Walz’s withdrawal as Democrats’ presumptive vice presidential nominee.
In our interview barely an hour before sending the tweet, Gonzales minced even fewer words: “In my eyes, that’s stolen valor,” an affront to the honor and distinction of those who have legitimately earned their stripes through years of dedicated service.
We will see how this plays out in the coming days. I do agree with a point that Walz made that we should never denigrate anyone’s service to this country: they should be thanked and appreciated.
However, we should never overlook when someone denigrates government service by “puffing up” or “embellishing” their own service and or accomplishments in ways that demean or cheapen the service and accomplishments of others.
The story that has been told by his peers and commanders at this point paints a very sorry picture of his integrity in light of what he has said-claimed-and not said.
Sometimes you just have to man up-take it like a man-and set the record straight.
15 August 2024
LSMBTGA: Lamestream media echo chamber (LMEC-L) social media (SM) big tech tyrants (BT,) government (G) and academia (A)
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
1 thought on “Tim Walz’ story: Weasel, Politician or? When Does Political Talk Cross The Line?”