As the Iraq War intensified into a brutal insurgency, Tim Walz chose to retire from his Minnesota National Guard field artillery unit just as it was about to be deployed. Walz, a senior non-commissioned officer with a background in the Nebraska National Guard, opted to leave his unit rather than serve under fire.
The process for federalizing National Guard units, known as Title 10 activation, is typically communicated well in advance, giving senior members ample notice of impending orders. Walz was aware of this procedure and submitted his retirement paperwork knowing his unit was on the verge of activation.
Following the September 11 attacks, the Army implemented a “stop-loss” policy, which prevented active-duty soldiers from retiring or separating. However, this policy did not apply to National Guard members until their activation under Title 10. Walz’s decision to retire allowed him to avoid this restriction, despite his claim of a command sergeant major rank he had not earned, as he had not completed the Sergeant Major Academy or committed to additional service.
In 2001, while serving with the Washington National Guard’s Company A, 1-19th Special Forces Group (Airborne), we were informed of our imminent deployment to Afghanistan. Our unit eventually served in Kuwait and Iraq, participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
In April 2002, I accepted a position with the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office in Central Oregon. Sheriff Les Stiles, understanding my deployment, promised to hold a position for me upon my return, which he honored.
My Minnesota heritage includes ancestors who served with distinction in the Civil War and World War I. Following 9/11, many Minnesota National Guard soldiers made sacrifices. Walz’s choice to remain behind while his unit deployed reflects poorly on his service.
If Walz is truly proud of his military record, his misleading claims about his rank and combat experience, including his false assertion of serving in Afghanistan, raise serious concerns about his integrity.