Amid rising controversy, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's military service is under intense scrutiny in the wake of his VP nomination.

The focus on Walz’s military record intensified following his selection as Kamala Harris’s running mate, with accusations of misrepresentation and abandonment leveled by former colleagues now surfacing, as National Review reports.

Walz, a long-serving member of the National Guard, faced significant backlash over his military record after being named Kamala Harris's running mate.

The debate centers on his rank and service details, which some former colleagues assert were exaggerated for political leverage.

Diverging Opinions Among Guardsmen

John Behrends, who served 17 months in Iraq, expressed a critical view of Walz’s character and leadership from their days in the Minnesota Guard. Behrends recalled, "The only thing I knew about him is he talked too much, and he liked to hear himself talk."

Accusations against Walz include a significant claim where he allegedly misrepresented himself as a command sergeant major, despite not retiring with that rank. This particular aspect of his service record has become a focal point of contention among those who served with him.

Service Record Under Scrutiny

Walz's official military tenure includes 24 years with the National Guard, featuring a stint in Italy but no deployment to combat zones like Afghanistan. This fact has contributed to the mixed perceptions within the military community regarding his commitment.

As national attention turned to Walz's past, the details of his service became a hot topic, particularly his decision to retire from the military just as his unit was set to deploy. This move was seen by some, like fellow guardsman Erickson, as a way to avoid further military obligation. Erickson remarked, "When you do that, you’re making a commitment. And when we get the warning order, you’re going to be deployed, he bailed out before the stop-loss order could go into effect."

Partisan Debate Stirs Among Veterans

The controversy has not only affected Walz's political career but also stirred a broader debate among veterans and active members of the military. Some defend his decision to retire for political reasons, while others view it as a betrayal of his duties.

Amid these accusations, some, like a guardsman who chose to remain anonymous, still defend Walz’s choices, asserting, "I know that in his mind he’s always doing what he thinks is the right thing for the people around him."

Behrends and others have been vocal in their attempts to correct the public record regarding Walz's military rank and actions, especially as his political profile rose. "I said, ‘Well, he’s not one. He dropped out,’" Behrends recalled telling a friend about Walz’s misrepresented rank.

Walz's Military Performance Questioned

Erickson, another colleague from Walz's time in the guard, was blunt in his assessment of Walz’s military performance, stating simply, "He wasn’t outstanding."

These personal testimonies paint a picture of a man who, according to some, prioritized his political ambitions over his military responsibilities, a sentiment that has divided his former peers.

As the debate continues, Behrends emphasizes the gravity of the situation: "This is about patriotism, not politics," highlighting his disappointment in Walz's actions during a critical time for their unit.

Criticism Persists

Despite the controversy, Behrends took a moment to commend the younger members of the military, giving a "big shoutout to all the 19-year-old cooks" who served under difficult circumstances, referencing a derogatory description given by Walz about Guard members during the 2020 George Floyd riots.

This gesture of appreciation for the junior soldiers contrasts sharply with his views on Walz's actions, showcasing a deep respect for commitment at all levels of service.

In conclusion, the scrutiny of Tim Walz's military record has opened up a complex debate over the values of duty and political ambition.

His decisions, both in and out of uniform, continue to resonate through the ranks of the military and the corridors of political power, leaving a legacy that is both controversial and instructive for those who follow.