Thread by @koolidge

Former Army personnel officer here, 6 years active duty, one in a combat zone. Processed many medals. Some insights on the Walz stolen valor controversy.

A thread…

First, here are the levels of “combat” service, in order of danger, in laymen’s terms:

1. Medal of Honor level combat heroism (extremely rare)

2. Involved in direct fire fight (s) with enemy and went above and beyond call of duty (think silver star or bronze stars with “V” device action)

3. Performed duties in direct (tanks, rifles) or indirect (artillery) fire fight, or very near one, in a combat zone, honorably. You may or may not have fired your weapon, but you were definitely in significant danger from enemy fire for some or multiple periods of time

4. [JD VANCE] [also me] Performed duties honorably anywhere WITHIN a combat ZONE, in an area that may have received direct or indirect fire at some point.

While #4 is the “safest” level of combat, it is absolutely still, by definition, 100% and without reservation considered “combat.” Mainly because in a combat zone, at any time, the “rear” can become the “front line” as soon as the enemy decides it wants to fire at you, directly or indirectly (Ex. The Tet Offensive in Vietnam immediately made all those in Saigon HQs soldiers “frontline troops”)

The easiest, black and white delineation of whether you technically “served in combat” or not is money. If you received combat pay on your pay stub, you served in combat. And believe me, every single veteran knows whether or not they ever received combat pay.

———————————————-
XXX HUGE BREAK HERE XXX
———————————————-

5a. [WALZ] Served honorably overseas in a safe NON-combat zone in an area where no one’s firing at anyone, ever, and your unit is completely out of harms way. You’re ready to be called *into* a combat zone at any time, but you’re safely not in one (think US troops in Germany, Italy, etc.)

5b. OR you served stateside entire career, however long, where you *could* have been called up anytime to go overseas into a combat zone, OR you could have volunteered to do so, but for a variety of reasons (most outside your control) never did.

ALL servicemembers are KEENLY aware of which of these levels (not necessarily numbered) of danger they served in.

Levels 1 and 2 are pretty clear cut and deserving of the highest respect for obvious reasons.

When you get to 3 and 4, there’s friendly bragging/ribbing *amongst combat veterans* about what they experienced. There’s regardless an understood mutual respect because whatever you did, you each served “in combat” and are considered a combat veteran.

You can join the VFW, for example, because you are a VETERAN of a FOREIGN WAR. Those that did not (# 5) are not eligible to be members of the VFW.

ALL veterans deserve respect for their service, regardless of where they served. Contrary to popular belief those that served in combat, at any level, don’t look down upon those veterans who did not, because most understand that for the most part, most troops don’t control where they go. It’s always about the needs of the military.

Just as there are many who served in combat who didn’t want to, there are many who wanted to but weren’t called to. This is an understood truth amongst almost all honorable veterans.

However what you don’t EVER do, and where you LOSE respect because it is DISHONORABLE, is insinuate or pretend that you did serve in a combat zone, but did not. EVERY VETERAN knows whether they did or not.

While there’s *some* nuance regarding what *level* of combat you experienced, there is NONE about whether you served in a combat zone or not. You either did, or you didn’t. And you don’t EVER cross the line to LIE and say you “served in combat” nor do you INSINUATE that you did, if you didn’t.

WALZ insinuated, numerous times, as a politician, that he served in combat. But he never did.

This is abhorrent and should be called as such.

@holzenkrieger For example, they *inflate* Walz's 5 service, ("He served for 24 years!") even though he did some shady things at the end of his career (not even talking about his own combat insinuations) while they *deflate* Vance's 4 service ("Well, Vance admitted he never 'saw' combat.")