Posting #26: The story of “war stories” and Stolen Valor

The story: Americans have come to expect exaggeration and hyperbole when servicepeople tell their stories about having been at war.  These tall-tale “war stories” often paint the servicepeople as heroic, noble, and long-suffering, but also, sometimes, as having a jolly good time while they selflessly defend their country. The stories rarely recount moments of boredom, terror, love, atrocity, or fear, nor do they say that, although participating in war, the servicemember was not in combat.  And we don’t take offence at their exaggerations, largely because so few Americans serve that we don’t know better. We also don’t dare call their service into question by challenging their stories.

My take on the story:  I would say we have come to expect so-called “embellishments.” 

What we don’t expect are outright lies. 

According to the Military Times, though, lying about service by American veterans and those who pose as veterans happens a lot and has for a long time.  It “didn’t just occur starting with the modern wars…Fakery was reportedly widespread during the Civil War and its long aftermath,” and the article cites posers from every American war since, including that of the “greatest generation,” World War II.  Startlingly, the Military Times quotes the foremost expert on military fraudulence, B.G. Burkett: “I personally believe there are as many American males claiming military service falsely as there are living veterans in America.  That’s a big number— approximately 23.6 million.” 

Once the failed Vietnam War was restored to “a noble cause” by President Reagan and men wanted to be associated with it, the number of veterans and ostensible veterans grew.  Although the vast majority of eligible men found ways to avoid the draft and so did not serve in the Vietnam War, and nearly nine out of ten who did serve were not in combat, millions of self-identified “veterans” or “combat veterans” are not, in fact veterans at all.  With the allure of being seen as veterans, however, and with the obliteration of about 20 million veterans’ records in 1973 enabling fraud, these knowing fraudsters began to fabricate military exploits, if at least to gain the attention of a now-adoring public and, at most, to garner veterans’ benefits from the federal government. 

This post-Vietnam War fabrication is where the notion of “Stolen Valor” originated: that men would inflate their service—by claiming combat, medals, and disabilities—or would manufacture service entirely.  The problem with this is not only the hurt feelings of those who did serve or the degradation of their earned awards.  Many of these imposters were claiming valorous acts warranting medals and VA financial benefits that they had not earned.  And there’s the rub: unearned social and financial benefits.  

Despite the alleged direness of the problem, it was not until 2005, decades after the Vietnam War, that Congress enacted the “Stolen Valor Act of 2005,” which “made it a misdemeanor to lie about earning any kind of military medal or honor.”  In 2012, however, the Act was determined by the Supreme Court to be a violation of the First Amendment, which permits tall tales—embellishments—about one’s service. In 2013, therefore, Congress amended the Act to address its unconstitutionality so that “the lies in question must result in some kind of tangible benefit before they can be considered legally problematic.”  And the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes a provision to disincentivize lying about service in the armed forces to obtain grants from the Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Program.  This federal program limits the competition to only businesses owned by veterans with service-connected disabilities.  But rather than trusting applicants to self-certify their status, the 2023 provision requires they be formally certified by the Small Business Administration.

So these are now crimes: claiming service illegitimately/impersonating a servicemember, claiming medals that have not been earned, claiming service-connected disabilities that don’t exist.  What is NOT criminal is: wearing camouflage, vintage clothing with nametags and unit patches, wearing someone else’s dogtags, driving a Hummer or a Jeep, or even embellishing one’s service record—like claiming to have parachuted into a National Park as a Navy SEAL when that is expressly illegal.  These incidents and stories might be offensive and distasteful and even misleading, but these acts are not criminal “Stolen Valor.” 

So here’s why “Stolen Valor” is in the news these days: Republican Donald Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, accuses Tim Walz, Democrat Kamala Harris’ running mate, of it.  Vance alleges that Walz has misrepresented his rank, his participation in war, and abandoned his National Guard unit when they were about to be deployed to Iraq.  Because Stolen Valor is a crime, this is an accusation that should not be leveled lightly. 

But it strikes me as no coincidence that Chris LaCivita, the person behind the stolen-valor “swift-boating” smear campaign of 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (funded by Harlan Crow, the ultra-wealthy benefactor of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas), and who name-called the Arlington National Cemetery official a “despicable individual,” is also the current co-manager of the 2024 Trump campaign. This appears to be Republican operative LaCivita’s go-to maneuver when it comes to Democrats: he has a long history of leveling accusations of stolen valor and it wouldn’t surprise me if he is advising Vance to make these assertions. 

The Democratic presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, chose Tim Walz to be her running mate.  Walz has been the governor of Minnesota since 2019, previously served in the House of Representatives for 12 years (2007-2019) (during which time he served on the Committee on Veteran’s Affairs and the Armed Services Committee), and before then was a Social Studies high school teacher and football coach.  Until beginning his run for the House in 2005, Walz served in the Army National Guard for 24 years as an enlisted person.  

And this is where Vance’s accusation of Stolen Valor arises. Here’s Walz’s story according to Wikipedia.

·      First, rather than retiring in 2001 from the Army National Guard after 20 years, which he was eligible to do, Walz chose to reenlist because of 9/11. In 2003, his artillery unit was deployed to Vicenza, Italy for nine months as part of the American war in Afghanistan (AKA “Operation Enduring Freedom”). 

·      Second, it’s unclear exactly when Walz was promoted from Master Sergeant to Command Sergeant Major (CSM, the highest enlisted rank), since it’s described as “near the end of his service.”  But late in 2004 he submitted his retirement papers and in February 2005 submitted the paperwork to run for elected office.  If elected, he would not have been able to stay in the National Guard, since some activities would be a violation of the Hatch Act.  If retired from the National Guard, he would be unable to complete the 10-month course required of a CSM.  Thus—and this is the sticky part—though Walz had been promoted and did the job of a CSM, he retired with the pension of a Master Sergeant.

·      Third, in March 2005—several months after Walz had submitted his retirement papers—the Minnesota Army National Guard was notified that some units might be deployed in the next two years.  Walz’s retirement was approved early in May and he retired on May 16, 2005.  Walz’s former unit was notified two months later, on July 14, that it might be deployed to Iraq.  In August, the unit received its mobilization orders, and the unit was deployed in March 2006—a full year after the unit was informed it might be deployed.       

So what?

So here’s the upshot: influenced by LaCivita, Vance doesn’t assault Walz as a high school teacher, a football coach, a Representative of Minnesota for a dozen years, a committee member for veterans and the armed services, or a two-term governor of the state.  Given the heroic status accorded to servicepeople and their families in current American culture, it’s Walz’s 24 years of service that Vance—who served for 4 years in the Marine Corps—must diminish by calling it “stolen valor garbage.”   

First, I would say about Vance’s accusation that Walz misrepresented his rank: it’s obviously confusing when a serviceperson is promoted and ACTS at the promoted rank but cannot fulfill the educational requirements for the promotion and so retires at a lower rank and lower compensation. (As a first lieutenant, I ACTED as a major…but I was not promoted to that rank.)  I’m not sure this difference happens in any other career, so I can accept the misunderstanding.  In academia, for instance, it is very clear among the faculty who has tenure/rank and who does not.  A tenure-track prof is identified as “Assistant/Associate/Full Professor” while a non-tenure-track professor is identified as an “Acting” or “Visiting” professor.  There is no such title in the military.  The Harris campaign misunderstood the distinction between ACTING CSM and CSM when it claimed Walz was a “retired Command Sergeant Major.” Once it was understood, the campaign revised that description.  They did not persist in referring to him as a “retired CSM.”

Second, though Walz said he “misspoke,” I would say that he was accurate when he said one time in 2018 that he carried weapons of war in war.  It’s the “war” part that Vance disputes: “Tim Walz, when were you ever in war? What was this weapon you carried into war, given that you abandoned your unit right before they went to Iraq, and you have not spent a day in a combat zone?”  As I point out in Posting #24, the naturalization of “war” means it’s all-encompassing and ahistorical, which is a faulty understanding when “war” does not distinguish between the many parts of a war effort.  “War” does not mean “combat.”  Not only do nearly nine out of ten servicepeople in war SUPPORT the one out of ten in combat, but MANY units are part of a war effort and are not deployed in the combat arena.  The fact is that Walz did not say he had been in combat.  But he was a part of the war in Afghanistan when his unit deployed to Italy. In fact, the New York Times reports that when Walz’s unit was deployed to Italy, “Of the 45,000 military personnel assigned to the combat mission that fall, less than a third, or about 10,000, were actually stationed in Afghanistan.”

Third, Vance asserts that Walz abandoned his National Guard unit when they were about to be deployed to Iraq: “When Tim Walz was asked by his country to go to Iraq, you know what he did? He dropped out of the Army and allowed his unit to go without him.” This assertion contradicts and deliberately misleads about the dates of Walz’s retirement from the National Guard I provided above:

·      late-2004: Walz submission of retirement application (3 years after he was eligible to retire with a pension)

·      March 2005: notification to Minnesota National Guard that units might be deployed

·      May 2005: Walz retirement approved and he retired

·      July 2005: unit notified it might be deployed

·      August 2005: unit receives orders to be deployed

·      March 2006: unit deployed to Iraq 

Moreover, if Walz were so irreplaceable to the unit’s operations, an Army “Stop-Loss” program could have prevented his retiring when he did.  His retirement, however, several years after he was eligible, was approved.

It’s not so curious to me that JD Vance, as Donald Trump’s “attack dog” running mate and guided by Chris LaCivita, would level these Stolen Valor accusations.  Rather than attack Walz’s known policies as a governor and Representative, Vance has been deputized—as a veteran himself—to assault the long service of another American. Other veterans have lambasted Vance’s attack, not only because they are pleased, finally, to have a long-term public servant running for office but also, I think, because the attack endangers the high status and preferential treatment of ALL servicepeople.  If a person who served the nation honorably for 24 years can be mugged, what of the others of us?

Finally, at a time when less than 1% of Americans volunteer to serve, we Americans revere our servicepeople.  We “support the troops” and thank them for their service, and we call them “heroes,” just for electing to put on the uniform.  We don’t know about or expect more. 

But with his accusation of “stolen valor,” potential Vice President JD Vance audaciously demands—doesn’t ask, DEMANDS—even more from servicepeople for that reverence.  To Vance, as Donald Trump’s running mate, other people—not himself and certainly not DJT—must:

·       serve indefinitely and selflessly for the nation, regardless of family needs or other career desires;

·       in a grave misunderstanding of what “war” entails, equate serving in “war” with “combat”;

·       and believe that putting on the uniform is not enough to warrant being a hero; the only way to earn valor or the title “hero” is to serve in combat.

Despite these audacious demands of who are supposed to be “volunteers”; and despite not comprehending the many challenges leading to the armed forces’ recruiting crisis that even the Heritage Foundation acknowledges came to a head in 2018, during Trump’s administration;  in a September 3, 2024 Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham, JD Vance added more, shall we say, bullshit to his long list of bullshittery when he claimed this:

“A second Donald Trump administration would spur an influx of new recruits. …We know that we can have a strong military. We just need strong leadership, Laura, and I think if we want to fix that recruitment problem, the best thing we can do is reelect Donald J. Trump. People trust his leadership.” 

JD Vance should get his facts straight—about the recruiting crisis, about what volunteerism means, about Tim Walz, about the toxic effect of immunity on a Commander-in-Chief, about the difference between “war” and “combat”…and about Stolen Valor.  

But I think Vance’s objective as Trump’s mouthpiece is not at all about truth—it’s about shaping the narrative.  Shall we call Vance’s rhetoric “embellishment”? Or are they lies?  And is Vance trying to steal the valor of another veteran?