By Luke Allen
August 10, 2024—In a recent development, the Harris campaign has come under fire for altering the description of Tim Walz’s military record on its official website. The controversy centers around the language change, which now describes Walz as “Retired command sergeant major” rather than clarifying that he rose to the rank of Master Sergeant but served in a Command Sergeant Major position.
This adjustment in the portrayal of Walz’s military service has drawn sharp criticism from his Republican opponent, JD Vance, and other members of the National Guard. They have accused Walz of “stolen valor,” a serious charge that implies falsely claiming military honors or achievements.
The core of the issue lies in the traditional military promotion process. Typically, soldiers are only promoted to higher ranks if they fulfill all requisite criteria and requirements. In Walz’s case, he served in a Command Sergeant Major role despite holding the rank of Master Sergeant, a nuance that the Harris campaign’s website initially failed to represent accurately.
Further complicating the matter are questions surrounding Walz’s deployment history. While Walz has stated that he was deployed to a war zone and carried certain weapons during his service, it has come to light that he was stationed in Italy. Although his service in Italy supported Operation Enduring Freedom, it was not in Afghanistan, as some might have inferred from his statements.
This controversy emerged after Walz’s comments about banning weapons he claimed to have carried during his military service. Such statements have led to heightened scrutiny of his record, prompting critics to examine the accuracy and integrity of his military portrayal.
As the debate continues, the Harris campaign has yet to release an official statement addressing the controversy. However, the scrutiny over Walz’s military record and the website’s language adjustment suggests that the issue is not likely to dissipate quickly. For many voters, the integrity of a candidate’s military service record is paramount, and any perceived discrepancies can significantly impact public perception and electoral outcomes. The potential consequences of this controversy are significant and cannot be overlooked.
