“Nobody hates veterans like other veterans.”
It’s true. There are tough crowds and then are veteran tough crowds. It’s like the internet meme says: “Civilians talk trash behind your back. Veterans talk trash to your face.” Most of the time it’s in good fun, and some of the time it’s more serious than fun, but equally well deserved. Then there are those times where we go over the top. And I mean way over the top.
Case in point: the sharp divide among veterans over the two vice presidential candidates.
That divide alone isn’t surprising. People are going to support who they support and that’s the way the election process works. Some people vote based on party, others on issues, and still others on character. Personally, I think we’re overdue to have veterans on the ticket and am happy to see that each party chose that route. But, like so many issues of late, the sharp divide among veterans is hard to miss.
In the days that have passed since the two presidential tickets were filled, there have been accusations ranging from cowardice to traitorism, from stolen valor to “swift boating.” And, as the debates moved online, fact and fiction became quickly blurred.
WHAT IS STOLEN VALOR?
Images of one of the vice-presidential candidates wearing a special forces baseball cap circulated widely, along with accusations of stolen valor. The keyboard warriors were out in force, damning the candidate and demanding action.
Stolen valor has a very specific legal definition. As a term, it describes an overt act of fraud in which someone poses as a military service member or veteran of the armed forces with the intention of obtaining money, property or other tangible benefits. For those keeping score at home, the act of wearing an organizational baseball hat isn’t stolen valor. If the candidate had worn the hat while claiming service in the organization with the intent of defrauding others, well… that’s stolen valor.
The same accusations were leveled for embellishments made by the same candidate. Storyfellers – the servicemember of veteran who never seem to stop one-upping everyone within hearing range – are nothing new. But the campaign trail isn’t your local VFW watering hole, and if you expect veteran voters to support you, then you’re obligated to walk back any embellishments you threw out along the way. It’s still not stolen valor, but it is dishonest and, as a community, we don’t look kindly on storyfellers.
WHAT IS SWIFTBOATING?
Then came the accusations of the same candidate “ducking” a deployment by retiring at the last minute before his unit departed for Iraq. In the ranks of the military, dodging a deployment is a cardinal sin, even more so if you remain in uniform while others are put in harm’s way. It’s unforgivable.
But, when the facts don’t support the accusation, it becomes swift boating, a pejorative term that describes an unfair or untrue political attack on someone’s military service record. The term derives from a “widely publicized – and later discredited – political smear campaign” by Vietnam-era swift boat veterans against 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry.
Facts are facts. Every veteran knows that the DD Form 214 – known as the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty – is the ground truth. The National Guard adds NGB Form 22, the National Guard Report of Separation and Record of Service. While both forms capture some of the aforementioned embellishments, what they don’t do is support an accusation of retiring to avoid a deployment. When you add to those forms the candidate’s original application to the Federal Election Commission – necessary to run for Congress in 2006 – and the unit’s deployment notification timeline for mobilization, it paints a much different picture.
Instead of someone ducking a deployment, you have a clear timeline that reflects someone declaring an intention to retire and run for political office well in advance of initial notification and more than two years before the actual deployment. Many of us have witnessed someone ducking a deployment; retiring fourteen months before the actual deployment hardly fits that definition, regardless of how you spin it. Let the documentation do the talking.
WHY BLUE-ON-BLUE?
But debunking the deployment timeline didn’t slow the train. With that issue essentially settled, debate in many circles quickly evolved to questioning the service component represented by the individual candidates. In other words, an active component versus a reserve component argument, with the term “weekend warrior” being tossed about to dismiss service in any other capacity than active duty. This proliferation of blue-on-blue incidents on social media and in the press – at least some of which has been spurred by the political candidates – has been hard to miss: support one candidate, you’re a traitor to your oath; support the other candidate, you’ve been seduced by a cult of personality.
In recent days, I witnessed one veteran suggest to another that they “meet offline to discuss” the baseball cap issue, inferring a dark parking lot where no security cameras were present. Still others are vehemently throwing down over a variety of political issues, showing a division that defies reason.
As a community, we’re ready to go to blows over two candidates – neither of whom have seen actual combat – rather than just celebrate the fact that two veterans are in the midst of a race to the White House. Enough blue-on-blue already. It’s past time for us to set aside the political divisions that have been drawn for us and get back to doing what we do best: tell mom jokes and insult one another, preferably in as obscene a manner as humanly possible.
