I am not a veteran, have never served in the military, but have been pondering the Walz thing in light of his tenure in the NG.
I have no problem with people who served in peace time and got out without seeing combat, and I know that not all roles are combat roles, no problem. I figure if you did some time in the military, and nothing happened while you were there, no problem, you got lucky, God bless you for your willingness to go to war if one came up.
With regards to Walz, I feel like 95% of the reason for existing of the National Guard is to be called up when necessary in a time of war. That's what you train and drill for during peace time, for the next one. If you retire purposefully to avoid combat, before your agreed upon date of separation, your service in my opinion, counts for nothing, because you actually did nothing. You trained for something, took payment for something and then hit eject when it was time to actually put in the work.
What are y'all's thoughts
I have no problem with people who served in peace time and got out without seeing combat, and I know that not all roles are combat roles, no problem. I figure if you did some time in the military, and nothing happened while you were there, no problem, you got lucky, God bless you for your willingness to go to war if one came up.
With regards to Walz, I feel like 95% of the reason for existing of the National Guard is to be called up when necessary in a time of war. That's what you train and drill for during peace time, for the next one. If you retire purposefully to avoid combat, before your agreed upon date of separation, your service in my opinion, counts for nothing, because you actually did nothing. You trained for something, took payment for something and then hit eject when it was time to actually put in the work.
What are y'all's thoughts