The controversy surrounding Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has taken a sharp turn as Lieutenant Colonel John Kolb, who took over command of Walz’s former National Guard unit, publicly criticized the governor’s military record. This comes as Walz, now the vice-presidential running mate of Kamala Harris, faces mounting accusations of ‘stolen valor’—a term used to describe false claims of military accomplishments.
Kolb’s statements are particularly damning, as they come from someone who directly succeeded Walz in the unit. In a Facebook post, Kolb made it clear that while Walz served competently in various roles, he did not earn the rank of Command Sergeant Major. According to Kolb, Walz “retired early from the Minnesota Army National Guard, did not complete the Sergeants Major Academy, and did not successfully complete any assignment as a Sergeant Major.”
Kolb’s criticisms extend beyond the issue of rank. He pointedly highlighted that Walz chose to retire just before his unit was deployed to Iraq, a decision that has led many to question his commitment to his fellow soldiers. Kolb remarked that Walz “got out of the way for better leadership,” a statement that underscores the resentment felt by some within the military community towards Walz’s early departure.
This controversy over Walz’s military service has become a focal point in the current political discourse, with high-profile conservatives like Donald Trump Jr. and Charlie Kirk amplifying Kolb’s accusations. Trump Jr. has gone as far as to question how long the mainstream media will ignore these allegations, suggesting a bias in favor of the Democratic ticket.
The accusations against Walz are not without precedent in American politics. The situation draws comparisons to the 2004 presidential race, where Democratic nominee John Kerry faced similar attacks over his military service. However, the current accusations against Walz have a uniquely personal edge, with Kolb’s remarks carrying the weight of someone who directly followed in Walz’s footsteps within the National Guard.
Walz has attempted to defend his record, pointing out his 24 years of service and his commitment to veterans’ issues during his political career. However, the Harris/Walz campaign has struggled to shake off the criticism, especially given Kolb’s detailed account of Walz’s military career. The campaign has downplayed the controversy, attributing any inconsistencies in Walz’s statements to simple misstatements.
Nonetheless, the backlash against Walz continues to grow. Minnesota National Guard Command Sergeant Major Doug Julin has also questioned the timeline of Walz’s retirement, suggesting that Walz may have deliberately timed his departure to avoid deployment. This narrative has been eagerly seized upon by Republicans, who argue that Walz prioritized his political ambitions over his duty to his unit.
As the Harris/Walz campaign pushes forward, the shadow of these ‘stolen valor’ accusations is likely to linger, providing ample fodder for their political opponents. The controversy underscores the ongoing scrutiny that military service records can bring to political candidates, particularly when questions of integrity and commitment to service arise. For Tim Walz, the road ahead looks increasingly challenging as he faces these serious allegations head-on.
