In the field of military service, civilians can muddle the terms and concepts

By JOE GRIMM
Director of the MSU School of Journalism Bias Busters project

The rare occurrence of two veterans as vice presidential candidates on the major party tickets could have been a wonderful opportunity to celebrate all that our nation’s millions of veterans have contributed—but, given the often toxic tone of our political divisions, this is turning into an opportunity for political partisans to snipe at the candidates’ military records.

Since Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was named as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, squaring off opposite Republican Sen. J.D. Vance, hundreds of news stories, blog posts, commentaries and op-ed pieces have reflected on these issues. And, unfortunately, as journalism professionals, we often find ourselves shaking our heads wearily at obvious confusion about the terms and concepts involved in military service and in the lives of veterans and their families.

Responsible journalists need to help sort out the often skewed claims and counter claims. And, some of us have done so: Four examples of solid journalistic analysis have been published by Snopes.com, The Washington Post Fact Checker, POLITICO and FactCheck.org.

But the debate continues, the sniping continues and more questions and claims keep unfolding.

Would you like some help in sorting out this moment of national confusion?

At the Michigan State University School of Journalism Bias Busters project—we have a book for that!

It’s part of our award-winning Bias Busters series, a volume called 100 Questions and Answers About Veterans: A Guide for Civilians.

How rare is this matchup?

Curiously, a lot of the coverage of this veterans’ match up call it “rare,” but then the writers don’t detail when such a matchup last occurred.

Digging into the history of veterans and presidential campaigns pretty quickly surfaces every-four-year disputes over whether presidential and vice presidential candidates did—or did not—serve. The further we dig into the past, we eventually bump into quadrennial debates about how candidates responded—or didn’t—to the Vietnam War in particular. So, there is nothing “rare” about political posturing over military service every four years.

What is rare is a matchup of veterans as vice presidential candidates. The last time this happened was 1992, when Al Gore (Bill Clinton’s VP choice) had been an Army veteran, Dan Quayle (George H.W. Bush’s pick) had served in the national guard—and Medal of Honor winner James Stockdale made a third-party bid as the potential VP with Ross Perot.

So, yes, since this hasn’t happened in more than 30 years, it’s accurate to call this Walz-Vance matchup of vets something “rare” on the national political stage.

Fact or Myth? There aren’t many veterans in national office.

Here’s a great example of the confusion: The truth of the above headline depends on your point of view—but Pew Research documents specifically the declining numbers of veterans in Congress, which roughly mirrors the decline across all levels of national leadership. Pew was able to assemble this chart, because—after every round of Congressional elections—the nation’s main veterans groups all publish fresh analyses of these numbers. This data is vital in their ongoing lobbying efforts to push for policies of interest to those currently serving our nation and those who are vets.

So, the truth of this headline depends on your definition of “many.” Generally the word means “a large but indefinite number,” which could be accurate for 17 senators and 50 representatives for a total of 67 people. However, Merriam-Webster says one meaning of the word “many” could be “the great majority of people” so then that headline isn’t accurate.

What we do know is that Pew’s headline is true: “Share of members in Congress who are veterans has fallen in recent decades.” And that declining portion of veterans among national leadership concerns all of the millions of Americans who care about our military families. The declining share of veterans in Congress means fewer American leaders understand, first hand, military and veteran issues.

And that was one reason our MSU Bias Busters team decided to work with veterans groups to publish our book.

Case in point in this election cycle: What is ‘deployment’?

It is no surprise that military language, dragged into politics, can be distorted. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2022, just 6.2% of the U.S. population 18 and older are military veterans. So, most of the country is unfamiliar with military-speak and might misuse or misunderstand it.

In his POLITICO analysis that is linked above, Ben Kesling wrote, “Just as people might not fully recognize the subtlety of a foreign language’s words and phrases, civilians frequently miss—or misinterpret—the language service members use to talk about the nature and scope of their service.”

One example is “deployment.” Kesling wrote, “Simply put, a combat deployment is when someone is sent to a place where troops are engaging in operations.”

That’s operations. Deployment does not connote combat.

Our book explains this term with an example. The question in our book is, “Has everyone deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan been in combat?” The answer: “Not all. Many were physicians, mechanics, or information technology specialists, for instance, or served in support positions away from combat areas. Some may have engaged in combat remotely as drone pilots or from vessels at sea.”

What is ‘Stolen Valor’?

First, it’s a serious charge that can, in some circumstances, be illegal under the Stolen Valor Act of 2013. For service members, veterans and their families especially, “stolen valor” refers to an even broader range of grave offenses involving claims of military service.

In one passage of our book, we explain to readers: “The Stolen Valor Act outlaws false claims of having received certain military decorations if done with the intent of financial gain. Some interpret the idea more broadly and object to any false claim or exaggeration of military service.”

It is the “more broadly” that leads to trouble. Candidates sometimes get in trouble, for example, when making off-the-cuff references to their military service—or because of memorabilia that supporters give them and encourage them to display. During his term in the White House, Donald Trump was accused of “blurring the lines” with his personal collection of “challenge coins,” which have a long tradition in military culture dating back to the Roman Empire.

Similarly, over the past decade, hats—especially baseball-style caps—have been at issue.

After wading through a number of potentially swampy issues, Kesling’s POLITICO conclusion is: “What shouldn’t be lost in the conversation is that both Vance and Walz served their country honorably and had no marks against their records when they were in uniform.”

Learn about military terminology and traditions in 100 Questions and Answers About Veterans: A Guide for Civilians.