At a campaign rally in Detroit on Aug. 7, JD Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president, accused Tim Walz, his Democratic counterpart, of “stolen valor” for claiming to have carried a gun “in war” even though he never saw active combat while serving in the Army National Guard. Mr. Walz served 24 years in the National Guard but retired in order to run for public office; two months later, his unit was deployed to Iraq.
Since Mr. Vance’s accusation, the military records of both men have been dissected by the media, with Walz supporters pointing out that Mr. Vance, who was deployed to Iraq while working in the public affairs department of the Marines, never saw hostile fire either. As a veteran, what concerns me most about this exchange is not the possibility of fighting among veterans; it is that the most harmful part of Mr. Vance’s remarks—a disregard for the harmful effects of survivor’s guilt—has gone seemingly unnoticed.
The candidates’ military records came under scrutiny after a video was posted on Aug. 6 on the social media website X, in which Mr. Walz advocated for gun control by saying, “We can make sure that those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at.” The next day, Mr. Vance responded at the campaign rally in Detroit, asking of Mr. Walz, “What was this weapon that you carried into war, given that you abandoned your unit right before they went to Iraq?” He added, “What bothers me about Tim Walz is the stolen valor garbage.”
Stolen valor refers to the act of claiming more military service or awards than one has actually earned. Most often it refers to a civilian implying that they served in the military, sometimes by wearing a uniform or by displaying badges or awards. But a soldier or veteran can also claim experiences that they never had, like seeing active combat.
Service members and veterans are very particular about the details of our service because the military is the closest thing to a meritocracy most of us will ever experience. It is nice never having to jockey for social position with one another; soldiers know they can advance if they are willing to put in the work. In Mr. Walz’s case, he put in the work to be made a command sergeant major, but his recent choice of words implied he had been “in war,” which he had not been.
Did Mr. Walz’s comments qualify as stolen valor? Yes and no.
Mr. Walz never served in a combat zone, but his unit guarded a military installation in Italy so that units of the 173rd Airborne Brigade could be deployed as needed to Afghanistan or Iraq. Mr. Walz undoubtedly carried a weapon, and it was in support of combat operations, but he was unlikely to ever have been in any imminent danger. Mr. Vance, likewise, saw only as much hostile fire as a public affairs specialist could expect. Still, Mr. Walz failed to err on the side of caution when he spoke on the video posted to X. He has publicly corrected his comments to clarify that “the weapon of war” he carried never actually entered the battlefield.
What I find more concerning is that, by publicly admonishing a fellow veteran for avoiding the dangers of combat, Mr. Vance has raised the specter of survivor’s guilt, a depressive symptom felt in the wake of traumatic events in which loved ones are killed. Mr. Vance’s remarks could amplify feelings of shame within the military community.
As an artilleryman like Mr. Walz, I regularly hear from non-combat veterans who feel like their service does not count for as much as mine did. Or if they did see “real fighting,” as I did, they often blame themselves for deaths that they did not cause. Survivor’s guilt can be an easier pill to swallow than the fact that we are not in control of what happens to us and our comrades.
By falsely claiming that Mr. Walz abandoned his unit, Mr. Vance used a bully pulpit with the possible result of inducing shame within a community devastated by trauma, substance abuse and suicide. He should publicly retract his comment about Mr. Walz “abandoning his unit” lest it lend credence to false guilt felt by many of our military veterans.
It is not often that our nation has two enlisted veterans to choose from in a presidential election, and it presents an excellent learning opportunity for civilians to learn more about military social dynamics. The military is far from homogeneous, and civilians can benefit from asking questions about service and gaining a perspective on the unique qualifications that veterans bring not only to politics, but also to the workplace and the public sphere.
