Pete Buttigieg, a prominent figure in American politics, has frequently highlighted his military service, particularly his deployment to Afghanistan, as a cornerstone of his public persona and political campaigns. Entering the political arena, much like historical figures such as George Washington, Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, strategically emphasizes his seven-month tour as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan. This service record serves as a powerful credential, especially when appealing to a broad electorate. However, this approach requires navigating a delicate balance: acknowledging the significance of his wartime experience without exaggerating its nature.
Buttigieg is careful in his self-description, notably refraining from labeling himself a combat veteran, even while acknowledging the inherent dangers of his deployment. This distinction has been amplified by comparisons, such as those made by former presidential nomination competitor, Rep. Seth Moulton, who emphasized the difference between Buttigieg’s service and his own multiple combat tours in Iraq. Adding to the nuanced discussion, a former commanding officer of Buttigieg’s, while suggesting Buttigieg could justifiably claim the title of combat veteran, questioned the appropriateness of using a rifle in campaign advertisements.
As Pete Buttigieg’s political profile has risen, scrutiny of his military background has intensified. This examination occurs within a political landscape where military service, despite its respected status, is not immune to political questioning, as evidenced by past challenges to the records of figures like John McCain and John Kerry.
During a campaign bus tour in Iowa, Buttigieg addressed the complexities of defining his experience, stating, “It kind of felt like combat when the rocket alarm went off. But I don’t feel prepared to use that term for myself.” This statement reflects a cautious approach to characterizing his service while acknowledging the real threats encountered.
It’s noteworthy that among contemporary Democratic candidates, Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard stand out as the only individuals with military experience. Should Buttigieg have ascended to the presidency, he would not only have been the first Democratic president with military service since Jimmy Carter but also the first president to have served in a post-9/11 conflict.
Buttigieg’s path to military service was voluntary, and his intellectual capabilities quickly garnered recognition. Retired Col. Guy Hollingsworth selected Buttigieg as the lead analyst tasked with tracking financial flows to terrorist networks in Afghanistan. This critical intelligence work directly supported combat operations.
Although a significant portion of Buttigieg’s Afghanistan deployment was spent in a secure intelligence office at the U.S./NATO headquarters within the Green Zone, his numerous excursions outside this fortified area are a key point in the debate over his veteran status. According to Hollingsworth, these trips into Kabul’s unpredictable environment qualify Buttigieg as a combat veteran.
During these missions, Buttigieg was responsible for driving teams of officials in an armored SUV through Kabul’s challenging streets. He was equipped with body armor and had an M4 rifle readily accessible. Navigating these routes presented substantial risks.
“That is the definition, going down range into a combat zone,” Hollingsworth asserted, underscoring his view of Buttigieg’s combat veteran status.
The dangers of Kabul’s streets were multifaceted, ranging from potentially hostile crowds to the threat of hidden improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in parked vehicles. These conditions meant that any vehicular movement, even short distances, carried considerable risk.
Retired Col. Paul Karweik, who succeeded Hollingsworth as Buttigieg’s commanding officer, corroborated the hazardous nature of these deployments. “Anytime somebody would go in a vehicle and drive, no matter how close it would be — even six city blocks away — over there, that’s a life-or-death situation,” Karweik explained.
However, it’s also a matter of record that Buttigieg never discharged his weapon nor was he subjected to enemy fire. These criteria are central to the definition of a combat veteran in the context of receiving the Combat Action Badge, a definition that Karweik adheres to and one that Buttigieg himself seems to acknowledge.
Despite these nuances, Buttigieg has not shied away from emphasizing the more perilous aspects of his wartime service during his campaigns. This emphasis serves to subtly differentiate himself from his primary Democratic competitors and to draw a direct contrast with figures like President Donald Trump.
In a notable address to Iowa Democrats, Buttigieg drew a sharp contrast: “I don’t have to throw myself a military parade to see what a convoy looks like because I was driving in one around Afghanistan right about the time this president was taping season seven of ‘Celebrity Apprentice.’” This remark directly juxtaposed his military experience with Trump’s background.
Buttigieg has also frequently used the line that he has “seen worse incoming than a misspelled tweet,” referencing the sporadic, though often inaccurate, rocket attacks experienced at Bagram Air Force Base and later in Kabul.
He effectively integrates his military experience into campaign dialogues, particularly when advocating for policies such as the ban on assault weapons. In Charles City, Iowa, he connected his war zone experiences to domestic policy, stating, “This is definitely not the sense of peace and security I thought I was protecting when I was carrying one of these damn things around a war zone.”
While Buttigieg openly welcomes comparisons of service records with President Trump, who received multiple draft deferments during the Vietnam War, there are potential pitfalls in overemphasizing his military role.
Seth Moulton, before withdrawing from the presidential race, pointedly argued that his four combat deployments as a Marine officer provided a more robust test of leadership compared to Buttigieg’s service. Moulton stated to the Washington Examiner, “It’s good that Mayor Pete served, but there’s a world of difference between driving a Chevy Suburban in Kabul, where plenty of foreigners walk around without a problem, and closing on the enemy in combat.”
While Buttigieg’s commanding officers affirm the accuracy of his descriptions of his service, the potential for scrutiny remains. Hollingsworth noted, “It boils down to a bit of semantics,” when discussing the definition of a combat convoy and whether Buttigieg’s experiences align with that term.
According to Hollingsworth, while Buttigieg’s statement about “driving in one around Afghanistan” could be technically accurate, it might suggest a larger scale of operation than his actual assignment entailed. He also raised concerns about the campaign ad image of Buttigieg holding a rifle, questioning whether it might misleadingly imply engagement in hostile fire.
“If I were writing his bio ad, I wouldn’t start with that,” Hollingsworth advised, emphasizing that Buttigieg’s primary role was not direct combat engagement.
Buttigieg himself addressed questions about whether the rifle image embellished his mission, explaining that the photo was taken during a hike within the Green Zone. He told the Associated Press, “If you’re watching closely, you’ll notice I’m not wearing body armor. It was manageable risk, but you still wanted to have your weapon.”
These distinctions have already begun to fuel criticism from Republican circles on social media, raising doubts about Buttigieg’s credibility. These critiques echo past instances, such as Trump’s 2015 criticism of John McCain’s capture during the Vietnam War and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’s challenge to John Kerry’s Vietnam War record in 2004. These historical examples underscore the vulnerability of military service records to political attacks.
David Wade, John Kerry’s campaign spokesman, emphasized the importance of proactively addressing such challenges. “Bottom line, if it’s a character issue, you have to match dollar-for-dollar on advertising,” Wade advised, highlighting the necessity of a robust and early strategy to confront any attacks on a candidate’s military service record.
