I've been in the Army Reserve for about 16 years, and I've met people who've deployed 5 times, and are absolute dirtbags, I know people who have deployed once who are fantastic, and I know people who have never been deployed and are also outstanding.

So I guess the question I would ask you is at what point is someone's service enough? Walz did get mobilized in August 2003 for a nine month mission in Europe, he went when the Army asked him. He was call up for natural disaster missions at home when floods and tornados hit. This is all on top of all of the other Army training, drill, and other requirements over the course of 24 years. Which for any NCO or officer is generally far more than you are actually compensated for.

When someone retires from the Army, Guard, Reserve, or Active Duty they have to submit their request 6-9 months if not a year in advance. In Feb. 2005 he had already filed to run for congress, he retired in May 2005, his unit was only notified that they were mobilizing in March 2005. So I don't think characterizing this as his unit was getting deployed and he then decided to leave them high and dry is accurate.

Additionally once a solider reached the rank of SSG (E6) in the Army and they have at least ten years of service they sign up for an "indefinite term." Which also means if they hit 20 years of service they are free to leave at any time.

I've always told my soldiers you have to do what's best for your civilian career, because the Reserve/Guard are not going to pay your bills when the mobilization is over.

So I think he served honorably for 24 years, just like I feel that Vance served honorably. What I'm really shocked about is that we are sitting here trying to make a call on weather or not someone who showed up for 24 years "counts for nothing, because you actually did nothing."

AGhistorian said:

---

I've been in the Army Reserve for about 16 years, and I've met people who've deployed 5 times, and are absolute dirtbags, I know people who have deployed once who are fantastic, and I know people who have never been deployed and are also outstanding.

So I guess the question I would ask you is at what point is someone's service enough? Walz did get mobilized in August 2003 for a nine month mission in Europe, he went when the Army asked him. He was call up for natural disaster missions at home when floods and tornados hit. This is all on top of all of the other Army training, drill, and other requirements over the course of 24 years. Which for any NCO or officer is generally far more than you are actually compensated for.

When someone retires from the Army, Guard, Reserve, or Active Duty they have to submit their request 6-9 months if not a year in advance. In Feb. 2005 he had already filed to run for congress, he retired in May 2005, his unit was only notified that they were mobilizing in March 2005. So I don't think characterizing this as his unit was getting deployed and he then decided to leave them high and dry is accurate.

Additionally once a solider reached the rank of SSG (E6) in the Army and they have at least ten years of service they sign up for an "indefinite term." Which also means if they hit 20 years of service they are free to leave at any time.

I've always told my soldiers you have to do what's best for your civilian career, because the Reserve/Guard are not going to pay your bills when the mobilization is over.

So I think he served honorably for 24 years, just like I feel that Vance served honorably. What I'm really shocked about is that we are sitting here trying to make a call on weather or not someone who showed up for 24 years "counts for nothing, because you actually did nothing."

---

Thank you sir..
Some people are saying "Walz lied about being an E-9...he's really an E-8!!"
He ATTAINED the rank of E-9. He was promoted. But because he chose to retire, which he had the perfect right to do, his RETIREMENT PAY reverts back to E-8. This happens all the time in the military. Guys get promoted, and then decide for whatever reason to retire. I knew of a Navy Pilot who got promoted to O-6, but decided he didn't want to spend his next 3 years brewing coffee for Admirals at the Pentagon. So he retired. His Retired Pay reverted back to O-5. He and his wife were comfortable financially, and they didn't wanna leave Northern California. He's still allowed to call himself "Retired Captain XXXXX" because he attained that Rank. This guy just so happened to spend 7 years in the Hanoi Hilton. Anybody wanna tell me that what he did was "Dishonorable"?

AGhistorian said:

---

I've been in the Army Reserve for about 16 years, and I've met people who've deployed 5 times, and are absolute dirtbags, I know people who have deployed once who are fantastic, and I know people who have never been deployed and are also outstanding.

So I guess the question I would ask you is at what point is someone's service enough? Walz did get mobilized in August 2003 for a nine month mission in Europe, he went when the Army asked him. He was call up for natural disaster missions at home when floods and tornados hit. This is all on top of all of the other Army training, drill, and other requirements over the course of 24 years. Which for any NCO or officer is generally far more than you are actually compensated for.

When someone retires from the Army, Guard, Reserve, or Active Duty they have to submit their request 6-9 months if not a year in advance. In Feb. 2005 he had already filed to run for congress, he retired in May 2005, his unit was only notified that they were mobilizing in March 2005. So I don't think characterizing this as his unit was getting deployed and he then decided to leave them high and dry is accurate.

Additionally once a solider reached the rank of SSG (E6) in the Army and they have at least ten years of service they sign up for an "indefinite term." Which also means if they hit 20 years of service they are free to leave at any time.

I've always told my soldiers you have to do what's best for your civilian career, because the Reserve/Guard are not going to pay your bills when the mobilization is over.

So I think he served honorably for 24 years, just like I feel that Vance served honorably. What I'm really shocked about is that we are sitting here trying to make a call on weather or not someone who showed up for 24 years "counts for nothing, because you actually did nothing."

---

I don't want to argue about the particulars, but multiple CSM's in the MNARNG have said they spoke to him about being deployed, he said he wasn't retiring, and would stay with the unit; and then just vanished one day. They said he clearly had heard about the warning, and that is what motivated his exit.

Either way, only my opinion as a civilian, it seems easy to take a paycheck from the military for 24 years and go to Europe and Turkey and wear a uniform every now and again. Hell I wore a khaki uniform every day for four years and only got $1,000 my first two years on contract (I obviously did not commission).

I'm guessing over 24 years he took home over a quarter million in guard pay? Seems like he was paid to be trained for war. It's not a service if you're paid for your time and don't actually do the job you were trained for. Again, just thinking out loud.

I might be missing something but is the promotion from o-5 to o-6 conditional on attending some sort of school?

I believe that was the main point of argument regarding him calling himself a retired CSM. His promotion was conditional upon going 75 hours of schooling or something and he didn't do it.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGhistorian said:

---

I've been in the Army Reserve for about 16 years, and I've met people who've deployed 5 times, and are absolute dirtbags, I know people who have deployed once who are fantastic, and I know people who have never been deployed and are also outstanding.

So I guess the question I would ask you is at what point is someone's service enough? Walz did get mobilized in August 2003 for a nine month mission in Europe, he went when the Army asked him. He was call up for natural disaster missions at home when floods and tornados hit. This is all on top of all of the other Army training, drill, and other requirements over the course of 24 years. Which for any NCO or officer is generally far more than you are actually compensated for.

When someone retires from the Army, Guard, Reserve, or Active Duty they have to submit their request 6-9 months if not a year in advance. In Feb. 2005 he had already filed to run for congress, he retired in May 2005, his unit was only notified that they were mobilizing in March 2005. So I don't think characterizing this as his unit was getting deployed and he then decided to leave them high and dry is accurate.

Additionally once a solider reached the rank of SSG (E6) in the Army and they have at least ten years of service they sign up for an "indefinite term." Which also means if they hit 20 years of service they are free to leave at any time.

I've always told my soldiers you have to do what's best for your civilian career, because the Reserve/Guard are not going to pay your bills when the mobilization is over.

So I think he served honorably for 24 years, just like I feel that Vance served honorably. What I'm really shocked about is that we are sitting here trying to make a call on weather or not someone who showed up for 24 years "counts for nothing, because you actually did nothing."

---

I don't want to argue about the particulars, but multiple CSM's in the MNARNG have said they spoke to him about being deployed, he said he wasn't retiring, and would stay with the unit; and then just vanished one day. They said he clearly had heard about the warning, and that is what motivated his exit.

Either way, only my opinion as a civilian, it seems easy to take a paycheck from the military for 24 years and go to Europe and Turkey and wear a uniform every now and again. Hell I wore a khaki uniform every day for four years and only got $1,000 my first two years on contract (I obviously did not commission).

I'm guessing over 24 years he took home over a quarter million in guard pay? Seems like he was paid to be trained for war. It's not a service if you're paid for your time and don't actually do the job you were trained for. Again, just thinking out loud.

---

I don't know any service member who thinks in this capacity. For a civilian, you sure have a clear narrative painted on a man who wore the uniform and retired.

He enlisted in 1981 and hit his 20 years in 2001 and would have retired then if it wasn't for 9/11. Dude was an old crusty MSG, at that point.

What gives you the right to say he didn't serve enough?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I might be missing something but is the promotion from o-5 to o-6 conditional on attending some sort of school?

I believe that was the main point of argument regarding him calling himself a retired CSM. His promotion was conditional upon going 75 hours of schooling or something and he didn't do it.

---

O5-O6? So he is an officer now?

Aggie Therapist said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I might be missing something but is the promotion from o-5 to o-6 conditional on attending some sort of school?

I believe that was the main point of argument regarding him calling himself a retired CSM. His promotion was conditional upon going 75 hours of schooling or something and he didn't do it.

---

O5-O6? So he is an officer now?

---

If you'll look at the post I quoted, the guy mentioned he had a buddy who was promoted to O-6 who retired and was moved back to O-5, but still goes by "retired Captain"

So by your logic everyone else who served and didn't deploy to a warzone, and serve in the role they were trained for didn't live up to their contract:
"It's not a service if you're paid for your time and don't actually do the job you were trained for."

I know you say you don't want to argue about the particulars, but the context and particulars are actually pretty important.

I've read what those retired CSMs said, and in my entire career in the Reserve no one has every just "vanished one day." Retirement packets have to be put together and processed through every level from the Headquarters Company all the way up to Army Human Resources Command. Commanders, and CSMs spend a good portion of their time processing, signing off on, and monitoring the progress of these actions. I always knew as a commander if someone was retiring, or separating from the service, months if not a year in advance.

What about the thousands of soldier who serve in the Guard, Reserve, and Active Duty who never deploy? Even during wars this happens. My Grandad was in the U.S. Army from 1940-1947, and he never served in combat, or outside of the U.S., he spent most of his service in Alaska, building harbor fortifications that were never needed.

I'll pose the question again, when is someone's service good enough? Can you outline what will pass muster? My impression is that you mind was made up when you asked the question? Am I mistaken?

AGhistorian said:

---

So by your logic everyone else who served and didn't deploy to a warzone, and serve in the role they were trained for didn't live up to their contract:
"It's not a service if you're paid for your time and don't actually do the job you were trained for."

I know you say you don't want to argue about the particulars, but the context and particulars are actually pretty important.

I've read what those retired CSMs said, and in my entire career in the Reserve no one has every just "vanished one day." Retirement packets have to be put together and processed through every level from the Headquarters Company all the way up to Army Human Resources Command. Commanders, and CSMs spend a good portion of their time processing, signing off on, and monitoring the progress of these actions. I always knew as a commander if someone was retiring, or separating from the service, months if not a year in advance.

What about the thousands of soldier who serve in the Guard, Reserve, and Active Duty who never deploy? Even during wars this happens. My Grandad was in the U.S. Army from 1940-1947, and he never served in combat, or outside of the U.S., he spent most of his service in Alaska, building harbor fortifications that were never needed.

I'll pose the question again, when is someone's service good enough? Can you outline what will pass muster? My impression is that you mind was made up when you asked the question? Am I mistaken?

---

To answer your first question, no, and I mentioned that in my op. If you served entirely during peacetime or never left the USA then you did your job. If you had a 4 year commitment and left at the end of 4 years during a war, you did your job.

I don't think there's an impossible standard that I'm holding anyone to. Your service is good enough when you do what you're supposed to. If your job is to monitor weather operations in Louisiana, then that is your service. If you agree to another 4 years, and find out you're going to have to monitor weather operations in Afghanistan and decide to retire, then I don't respect the time you did in Louisiana as "service". Maybe I'm viewing it wrong, but if your idea of military service is to do a job wearing a uniform and get paid for it with the understanding that you're going to leave if you have to go to war, how is it different than a regular career? The risk of getting called up is where the service is, in my opinion. The idea that at any moment you might have to put your life in danger for your country is service. If you train for that your entire life; agree to do it for the next certain amount of time, and then leave when that time comes, you've done nothing but a job.

My mind is fairly made up, but I was hoping someone could make an argument and change my mind.

Something to consider when you are thinking about the idea of what service means, particularly service as a citizen soldier.

Being in the Guard/Reserve is in addition to your real career. So every month, for 24 year at the end of one work week instead of have a Saturday to watch football or run to the store he went to drill and did what the Army needed him to do all weekend. Go to the field, go to the range, do paperwork at the Armory until Sunday evening. Then on Monday morning you go back to the job that actually pays the bills.

Going back to your original post, as someone who has spent some time in the Army Reserve and deployed, I don't have any qualms about Gov. Walz service. I think his actions were entirely appropriate, and I've seen many Reserve/Guard soldiers struggle with similar life decisions.

I'm sorry that you don't find that to be a convincing set of reasons. However even if you do disagree with his actions at the end of his career I would challenge you to reconsider your view of what the rest of his service means.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

To illustrate my point I'll give you an example. Completely made up, but hopefully it makes sense.

There's an absolute shortage of dentists for military bases, and to fill the needs of the servicemen and women the military commissions a bunch of civilian dentists with the express promise that they'll only do 4 years of service and that they'll never be deployed or moved outside of their home base.

Is what they're doing serving their country? How is it any different from what a dentist outside of the base is doing?

For me, what makes a military dentist a service member is that at any time he can be called up to go to Iraq or Afghanistan in a war zone, and he will go. That's where the "service" aspect comes from. If you're just going to get paid to do a job stateside with the knowledge that you'll leave if you go to war, you're just doing a job.

---

none of what your posting makes any sense

You are talking to actual service members and Veterans on this thread and giving us YOUR opinion on what service is having never served in the military.

What responses are you looking for?

Aggie Therapist said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

To illustrate my point I'll give you an example. Completely made up, but hopefully it makes sense.

There's an absolute shortage of dentists for military bases, and to fill the needs of the servicemen and women the military commissions a bunch of civilian dentists with the express promise that they'll only do 4 years of service and that they'll never be deployed or moved outside of their home base.

Is what they're doing serving their country? How is it any different from what a dentist outside of the base is doing?

For me, what makes a military dentist a service member is that at any time he can be called up to go to Iraq or Afghanistan in a war zone, and he will go. That's where the "service" aspect comes from. If you're just going to get paid to do a job stateside with the knowledge that you'll leave if you go to war, you're just doing a job.

---

none of what your posting makes any sense

You are talking to actual service members and Veterans on this thread and giving us YOUR opinion on what service is having never served in the military.

What responses are you looking for?

---

Anything honest will do. Unfortunately we don't live in a Heinleinein Starship troopers society where only military opinions account, things would probably be better if we did. With that being said, I'm able to have an opinion on things. When things pop into my head I like to cross examine them. If you'll go to the religion and philosophy thread you'll see I also ask a lot of questions on there.

I'm just looking for a logical answer that explains how service in the military is different than working a regular job, if you are able to get out of going to war.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

To illustrate my point I'll give you an example. Completely made up, but hopefully it makes sense.

There's an absolute shortage of dentists for military bases, and to fill the needs of the servicemen and women the military commissions a bunch of civilian dentists with the express promise that they'll only do 4 years of service and that they'll never be deployed or moved outside of their home base.

Is what they're doing serving their country? How is it any different from what a dentist outside of the base is doing?

For me, what makes a military dentist a service member is that at any time he can be called up to go to Iraq or Afghanistan in a war zone, and he will go. That's where the "service" aspect comes from. If you're just going to get paid to do a job stateside with the knowledge that you'll leave if you go to war, you're just doing a job.

---

I don't think this is true at all. Where did you hear this? If it was a recruiter, he was likely lying or didn't know what he was talking about.

If the military needs dentists with a promise of no deployment or moving, they'll just hire civilian contractors. Same thing with physicians. We have a ton of civilian physicians working at military hospitals. When there's a deployment, they pick up the slack for the commissioned doctors to go.

I have never heard of the military commissioning civilians dentists (or physicians) and promising them no deployments.

Also, hypothetically, if your situation was true, then those dentists are probably making less money and have less control over their lives than their civilian counterparts. Trust me, it is a hard sell to tell a physician or dentist to join the military where they'll make less money, they'll have to ask permission to drive more than 200 miles away from home on the weekend, they'll get no respect as a professional and will be treated just like any other officer, and many of their patients wont even think they're real dentists/physicians (just someone the army sent to some MOS school). So yes, even if all they did was their civilian job, they're still putting up with a lot, and making sacrifices to serve the military.

If anybody wants to mock Tim Walz's service, go ahead and mock mine as well.

I flew for 3 years off an Aircraft Carrier , Med and North Atlantic. Never had a shot fired at me in anger. Did all the night stuff, pitching rolling decks in the North Atlantic. Lost quite a few shipmates and squadron mates. ( Including a fish bud from A&M). Hey, nobody forced me to do it. I felt like the luckiest kid in the world at the age of 24. But I never served in combat so...I'm supposed to be ashamed?

Sadly, some of my "Fellow" Veterans think so. An older guy, a Vietnam Vet, gave me crap on day for being a "Prima-Donna" Pilot and not serving in Vietnam like him. Hey, blame my parents, they didn't have me until 1954. Nixon stopped sending Ground Troops to Vietnam when I was still in high school. Okay, I guess I should have dropped out of HS and enlisted so I could go to Vietnam. My dad wasn't too keen on that. He wanted me to get as much education as I could, so he and the Navy sent me to A&M. So fine. If this guy or anybody else wants to mock me for that, be my guest.

As for him retiring as a Command Sergeant Major, no, he is not entitled to that. When he was SELECTED to be a Sergeant Major, he could have gone to the SGM Academy at Bliss for a one year course, or he could have asked for the distance learning option, which he did due to having a day job and Guard commitment.

Upon completion of the course, of which he had two years to do since it is the distance learning option, he will be given a sequence number for actual promotion and will not be actually promoted until his number comes up.

Now, since he was selected for promotion, was slotted as a CSM on the MTOE and was in good standing on the distance learning course, he was FROCKED to CSM so that he would be on even footing with other actual CSMs when interacting with them. This is normal, and frocking is something that the Army does for 1SG and CSM.

A frocking is NOT a promotion, just a temporary appointment until the actual promotion happens. He was never paid as an E9. When he dropped his retirement request he had not finished the distance learning option at the Academy, therefore he never met the requirement for promotion and was reverted back to Master Sergeant, E8.

So, while he held the position in name as a Command Sergeant Major, he never met the requirement to be promoted to E9, which also carries a two year additional obligation starting of the day of promotion. Yes, he served as a CSM, but was never promoted to E9. He retired as an E8 Master Sergeant, period.

EDIT: Just because you submit the paperwork for retirement, it must be endorsed by the first two-star in your chain of command, and then submitted to HRC. If that person decides to not endorse for you to retire, HRC will most likely deny your request if you have time left on your Retention Control Point. Since his request was approved, his chain of command most likely wanted him gone, because I promise you his division commander knew of the upcoming deployment and would have kept him if he was of value to the organization.

My issue with Walz isn't really with him referring to himself as a CSM even though he should not be doing so. My issue with the Governor is his repeated statements over the years where he directly or indirectly makes references to having served in combat. And no, Italy does not come remotely close to this. He can try to twist "supporting OEF" from Vicenza all he wants but there's not a legit vet out there that's buying this. Using combat and the deaths of American service members for political gain is slimy.

I'm not saying this as some hardcore Trumpian. I despise MAGA. I personally believe Vance needs to cool his jets in regards to his own service. He was in a Marines Public Affairs unit assigned to an Air Wing for six months in Iraq. It's not as if he was in the s**t. He needs to take it down a few notches. Listening to the guy I legitimately thought he was Marine Recon at first. Nope.

Very true. My last 8 months or so in the NG I served as a PSG but I was an E-6 in a firing battery. I held the position but not the rank. I definitely put served as PSG on my resume and the responsibilities held but never claim to have been an E-7.

It's usually POGs who really beef up their stories in politics.

You served brother. Not everyone who serves has to go to combat. It's the purposefully leaving to NOT go to a war zone that's the issue

Aggie Therapist said:

---

Quo Vadis Doesn't respect your father's service

---

Not true

I'm a 20-year retired Army Major with a tour in Vietnam as a Warrant Officer helicopter gunship pilot. Walz took a school slot to become the unit CSM then dropped out. That cost his unit a slot and his replacement most likely wasn't trained. Plus Walz is on video talking about being on the airfield at Bagram. He was deployed to Vicenza, Italy, I spent 3 years there, it's a great place to be stationed. Walz was Field Artillery, they don't even have any live fire ranges at Vicenza. 24 years in the Guard or Reserves is commendable but inflating your service record and screwing your buddies sucks.
John Kerry. Served in Vietnam, 3 Purple Hearts and a Silver Star. He pushed his commander for all of those awards, got the SS after shooting a fleeing VC in the back. Then he threw his medals over the White House fence and testified before Congress that Vietnam vets were killing babies.
Walz is guilty of minor and annoying stuff.
Kerry is a pluperfect *******.
Walz would never have been picked if Shapiro had been Presbyterian.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

If he was reduced then he was reduced. Thus, he should, from a technical perspective refer to himself as a retired master sergeant.

Either way my gut tells me this issue is not what Trump/Vance want it to be. As it proceeds it's coming across as more petty than anything else.

My issue, as stated previously, is Walz's repeated statements where he alludes to having served in combat. However, I doubt even that "scandal" will have enough impact
to majorly impact the election.

---

That's my issue with Walz as well. I couldn't care less if informally he is referred to as CSM, and while the timing of his retirement may raise eyebrows, I don't think it should detract from 24 years of honorable service, but I don't like his obfuscation of the nature of his service to push a gun control agenda that is wrong headed on multiple levels.

OP didn't serve; seems odd to judge someone else's service.

Why didn't you serve, OP?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

You served brother. Not everyone who serves has to go to combat. It's the purposefully leaving to NOT go to a war zone that's the issue

---

Thanks, but no-one has proved that Walz purposely retired to avoid combat. That's mere CONJECTURE. It's just MAGA flinging crap at the wall to see if it sticks. The People in the Minn. Guard are smearing him because they didn't like him personally and/or they didn't like his politics., That happens in the military. I served with a number of guys I disliked, guys I want nothing to do with now. Do I attack their Service because of that? Hell no. A guy can be a complete A-hole and still be a great Aviator.

But here's the $million dollar question. Walz was in some tough elections in Minn for both Congress and Gov. If he was such a dishonorable person, why didn't these turds in the Minn Guard speak out then? You mean to tell me that the Minn. GOP is so flat-footed that they didn't do any Opposition Research?

It's all coming out now because it nothing but crap....and crap is all Trump/Vance have to sell.