Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance has been critical of Democratic counterpart Gov. Tim Walz’s military service, accusing him of misrepresenting his combat experience and shirking his deployment to Iraq. However, these criticisms appear to be unfounded and distract from the more pressing concerns regarding the future of the U.S. military under a second Trump administration.
Vance claims that Walz misrepresented himself as having served in combat, incorrectly identified himself as a retired command sergeant major, and avoided deployment to Iraq. However, these criticisms are demonstrably inaccurate. While Walz’s deployment supporting Operation Enduring Freedom did not bring him to Afghanistan as he initially suggested, he did serve honorably in Italy. Additionally, Walz’s title of command sergeant major is accurate, even though he did not hold the rank of E9. Lastly, Walz retired from the National Guard before his unit received mobilization and deployment orders. The Army has the authority to decline retirement requests, and in this case, accepted Walz’s request.
The tempest surrounding Walz’s military record masks the serious concerns about the implications of a second Trump administration for the armed forces. Trump’s history of using or threatening to use the military for domestic law enforcement, his dismissal of military leaders, and his comments about the Constitution raise significant questions about his respect for the military and its role in the Republic.
Trump’s attempts to invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests in 2020 and his musings about deploying the military against civilian migrants at the border demonstrate a dangerous disregard for the military’s proper role in American society. Furthermore, Trump’s accusations of treason against former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and his call for Milley’s execution due to his reassurance of China that the U.S. would not start World War Three during the presidential transition underscore his contempt for the military and its leadership.
Trump’s statement that he would terminate the Constitution in order to overturn the results of the 2020 election raises even more profound concerns. This statement represents a direct attack on the very foundation of American democracy, and it is critical to understand how a commander-in-chief who would disregard the Constitution would interact with the military.
Vance’s running mate, Donald Trump, has consistently demonstrated a disregard for the military and its traditions. His rhetoric suggests that he would involve the military in domestic law enforcement in deeply unwise ways, potentially leading to a militarized society and a further erosion of civil liberties. Additionally, his calls for the prosecution of retired military leaders and his disdain for those who served our country in combat are deeply troubling.
The focus of the pre-election debate should not be on the military records of candidates, but rather on the candidates’ visions for the future of the military and its role in the Republic. We must hold candidates accountable for their views on these critical issues and ensure that the military remains a vital and respected institution in our democracy.
