Cartoon causes JCS complaints

[carlrodd]

Good grief. No wonder irony is a lost art in this country.

The outrage over this cartoon is exactly -- and I do mean exactly -- the same as the stupidly incomprehensible outrage over the "racism" in Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn. Most educated people know that Twain's work was anti-racist; he set out to illustrate racism and to condemn it with biting, vicious, and blatantly obvious sarcasm. He accomplished his goal so very well that the perpetually humor-impaired are still "offended" by his work, lo these many years later.

Same thing with this cartoon. Rumsfeld's (and the administration he serves) multiple demands upon an overworked military and his callous disregard for the difficulties faced by military people as a result, is exactly the point that is being illustrated. The point is that the current administration is demanding too much of an overworked military, and of the people in it. In this sense, the cartoon is extremely pro-military, and the slings and arrows of "outraged" military supporters are pathetically misplaced.

Instead of being offended at how anti-military the cartoonist is, you might try being offended at the thing that is actually offensive: the callous mistreatment of troops which are severely overworked and continuously called upon to do the impossible by political authorities who have neither understanding of nor regard for the thinly-stretched condition of our military and the terrible burden that overstretching puts upon military families.

You might try being offended at the completely ridiculous and painfully obvious fact that ordinary troops are being sent overseas for longer periods, to do more diverse tasks, and with less support than they have at nearly any other point in our nation's history.

You might even turn some of the stupidly wasted energy you've spent decrying the MSM for publishing this, and direct it instead to our elected officials who obviously believe that a severely truncated and underfunded military is nonetheless capable of fighting on multiple fronts throughout the world, whenever and wherever the politicians decide the troops need to go today and without any regard for the condition of those troops. If you support our troops, you might consider protesting the over-use and under-funding of those troops.

But no, we're not going to do that. Because if we did that, it might have the effect of, you know, encouraging our leaders to either demand less of the military, or give the military the tools it needs to do the multiple jobs the politicians demand it to do.

Instead, we're going to stomp and hold our collective breath until the MSM apologizes for so clearly, cleverly, and sarcastically condemning the very point that offends us.

Brilliant.

pax

thank you pax. everybody read it again. and frankly, knee-jerking about an american political cartoon that some of you apparently spent NO time thinking about, is no different than certain muslims knee-jerking about danish cartoons depicting whatever else. the press is free to print what it wants. i'd be interested to see how many people that overreacted to this cartoon
also posted the opposite concerning the right of press to print those muslim-themed cartoons. double-standards????

 

[carlrodd]

I read your point -- and I also saw the cartoon. It's a double insult -- first the cartoon is an insult, assuming as it does that wounded soldiers are suitable subjects for "humor." Then the outrage that they would dare to take offense is the second insult.

i was in iraq, and i can say that i never saw a soldier that looked anything like the one in the DRAWING. it's an IMAGE, a REPRESENTATION, a SYMBOL. it's an attack against rumsfeld, not soldiers, or the military. it is one of the best political cartoons i have seen in a long time. if you care about individual soldiers you should be championing the theme of the cartoon. the man in charge of our defense is out of touch with reality, and chooses to be. he deserves criticism, and the cartoonist exercised that right.

 

[roo_ster]

The outrage over this cartoon is exactly -- and I do mean exactly -- the same as the stupidly incomprehensible outrage over the "racism" in Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn.

Sorry, Tom Toles is no Sam Clemens & the analogy is bunk.

Silliman89 hits closer to the mark:

At the risk of arguing with a moderator , I disagree with your interpretation of the cartoon. Amputated limbs have nothing whatsoever to do with "multiple demands upon an overworked military". Amputated limbs are "the difficulties faced by military people as a result" for only a small fraction of the military.

I think it's a better fit to correlate amputated limbs with the Army's inability to continue. The Army shown in the hospital bed is crippled. I think the point of the cartoon is that the Army is defeated. That and, as a token thrown to humor, that Rumsfeld is lying/wrong/incompetent about it.

Folks get all bent outta shape when Rumsfeld speaks truth to the clueless ninnies that pass for the press. Guess what? Rummy is correct: an army of veterans is more efficient, competent, and lethal than an army of untried troops; all else being equal.

Let us take another look:

1. Toles depicts the Army as a limbless cripple.
2. Rumsfeld looks at the cripple and applies a euphemism to the crippled state of the US Army patient.
3. Rumsfeld then prescribes that the US Army should have more of the same that put it into the crippled condition.

Now, if Toles were making the "cuts in funding" argument, perhaps he would have used someone from an administration that actually cut funding to the US Army, like GHWB or Clinton? I don't have the numbers at hand, but I think that GWB's orgy of spending the last 6 years included increases in spending for the US Army. As we can see, Toles did not dredge up his caricatures of Dick Cheney, Les Aspin, William Perry, & Bill Cohen, GHWB, or Clinton. He used Rumsfeld for a reason.

We all may decry the post Berlin Wall cuts to the US military, but if we are to debate those cuts we need to know just who is responsible for them.

At risk of quoting yet another Rumsfeld utterance, "We go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we would like to have." Like the above-mentioned (mangled?) quote, the MSM and BDS-ers went apey at the simple statement of fact.

knee-jerking about an american political cartoon that some of you apparently spent NO time thinking about, is no different than certain muslims knee-jerking about danish cartoons depicting whatever else

Yeah! Expressing displeasure and disagreement online and in print is no different than violent attacks, death threats, and rioting in the streets.

Someone needs an introduction to the difference between word and deed.

 

[middy]

I don't think anyone said the cartoon should have been censored. Who's overreacting?

It makes no sense, it's out of context, it's mean-spirited and in poor taste.

 

[carlrodd]

Yeah! Expressing displeasure and disagreement online and in print is no different than violent attacks, death threats, and rioting in the streets.

Someone needs an introduction to the difference between word and deed.

i'm pretty sure i was referring to a mindset that causes anyone to thusly react in word OR deed. and by the way, you still missed the clear intent of the cartoon. read pax's big post again.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

i'm pretty sure i was referring to a mindset that causes anyone to thusly react in word OR deed. and by the way, you still missed the clear intent of the cartoon. read pax's big post again.

Oh, I KNOW the intent of the cartoon -- I had that made clear to me when I came home wounded in '69.

Now the Washtington Post has the right to print what they want. And I have a right to express my opinion of their cartoon.

And I say anyone who thinks wounded soldiers are suitable subjects for cartoons is beyond contempt.

 

[middy]

What do you mean he missed the intent? He directly addressed pax's points.

The military does what our elected representatives deem is necessary, whether or not that results in them being uncomfortable, in danger, wounded, or dead. That is what the military is for, regardless of whether or not you agree with the politicians. That's how a Republic works. Rumsfeld is not the one who cut their budget.

You might try being offended at the completely ridiculous and painfully obvious fact that ordinary troops are being sent overseas for longer periods, to do more diverse tasks, and with less support than they have at nearly any other point in our nation's history.

That is completely untrue. I really can't understand where you get this impression. Have you ever read any memoirs of WWII veterans?

 

[roo_ster]

i'm pretty sure i was referring to a mindset that causes anyone to thusly react in word OR deed. and by the way, you still missed the clear intent of the cartoon. read pax's big post again.

I read it several times, including the reply to Silliman89, which further expounded the "slashed, chopped off, amputated" position. I don't think this was Toles's intent*, given the facts of the matter: GHWB & Clinton cut the US Army budgets, GWB increased it.

Facts do matter, don't they?

*Unless Toles is either:
a. Ignorant of the fatcs.
or
b. Misrepresenting the facts to make his point, secure that most who see his cartoon will be ignorant of the facts.
Ignorance or maleficence.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

The mangled shape of the Army represented in this cartoon isn't necessarily a result of budget cuts. It's more a result of being asked to do too much with too little manpower and support. Wasn't it Rumsfeld that said, "You go to war with the military you have..."? At that time, he failed to mention that we went to war at a time and place chosen by our leaders.

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

I personally don't think the cartoon is offensive. I am still not sure whether I agree with the underlying message but I feel the author was trying to make a perfectly valid point: that the army is stretched too thin and is paying for it.

I personally can't stomach the vein of public sentiment which idolizes the military to the point where it has become blasphemous to depict it in anything other than a positive way.

This cartoon has done exactly what it was designed to do: Reach a large number of people and inspire them to a discussion of the cartoons message. How did it go wrong and how is that a disservice to soldiers?

 

[engineer151515]

......

Same thing with this cartoon. Rumsfeld's (and the administration he serves) multiple demands upon an overworked military and his callous disregard for the difficulties faced by military people as a result, is exactly the point that is being illustrated.

Could somebody give me an example of Rumsfeld's callous disregard for the difficulties faced by military people, please?

 

[engineer151515]

........... Wasn't it Rumsfeld that said, "You go to war with the military you have..."? At that time, he failed to mention that we went to war at a time and place chosen by our leaders.

How long did you propose to wait for the development of new weapons systems?

Warfare has been a "come as you are" demand since the end of WWII.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Could somebody give me an example of Rumsfeld's callous disregard for the difficulties faced by military people, please?

Whatever anyone comes up with, it is not as callous as this cartoon.

You may remember there were people picketing outside a military hospital not long ago, carrying signs saying, "Maimed for a lie."

Now there's something designed to raise a wounded man's morale! There's something you want to show a man who's just suffered a traumatic amputation!

That kind of thing does actual harm to the wounded. And this cartoon is part-and-parcel of that mindset, that our wounded are mere political pawns.

 

[Manedwolf]

At risk of quoting yet another Rumsfeld utterance, "We go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we would like to have." Like the above-mentioned (mangled?) quote, the MSM and BDS-ers went apey at the simple statement of fact.

You go to war with the army you have WHEN YOU ARE ATTACKED. This was voluntary. Optional.

This was like charging into a SWAT raid with a .22 because the truck with the ARs and MP5s and such hadn't arrived yet and wouldn't be there for a few hours...but the suspects weren't going anywhere soon.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You go to war with the army you have WHEN YOU ARE ATTACKED. This was voluntary. Optional.

This was like charging into a SWAT raid with a .22 because the truck with the ARs and MP5s and such hadn't arrived yet and wouldn't be there for a few hours...but the suspects weren't going anywhere soon.

It's your theory then, that we were not attacked? That Iraq never aided and supported terrorists? That they were planning nothing more than a nice birthday party for us?

And that all this justifies picket signs outside military hospitals saying, "Maimed for a lie?" Or cartoons depicting combat wouded?

 

[walking arsenal]

Perhaps if our army wasn't busy defending all the other countrys we wouldn't be spread to thin? Just a thought.

 

[Manedwolf]

It's your theory then, that we were not attacked? That Iraq never aided and supported terrorists? That they were planning nothing more than a nice birthday party for us?

And that all this justifies picket signs outside military hospitals saying, "Maimed for a lie?" Or cartoons depicting combat wouded?

bin Laden attacked us. Saddam did not attack us.

bin Laden is alive and free. Saddam was being contained SUCCESSFULLY by the sanctions.

And yes, it does justiify it, because military historians, respected ones, told Rummy and company what would happen if you tried to hold a volatile country the size of CA with less than 200k troops!

Sending insufficient forces off to fight unecessary wars diminishes you as a power in the eyes of the world when you are unsuccessful. And don't go on about "winning"...how do you win an occupation?

It's also part of what did in the Romans. We don't want to follow the same path they did, but from this, to the rotting-within of the legislature on all sides and complacent populace, we're pretty much on that course.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

bin Laden attacked us. Saddam did not attack us.

bin Laden is alive and free. Saddam was being contained SUCCESSFULLY by the sanctions.

And yes, it does justiify it, because military historians, respected ones, told Rummy and company what would happen if you tried to hold a volatile country the size of CA with less than 200k troops!

Sending insufficient forces off to fight unecessary wars diminishes you as a power in the eyes of the world when you are unsuccessful. And don't go on about "winning"...how do you win an occupation?

It's also part of what did in the Romans. We don't want to follow the same path they did, but from this, to the rotting-within of the legislature on all sides and complacent populace, we're pretty much on that course.

I take it you failed the Command and General Staff course.

As for "yes it does justify it" -- that's typical of what was done to us in the Viet Nam war. Everything was justified by politics -- including the killing of thousands of American soldiers.

 

[scout26]

While I found the cartoon in extreme poor taste, I (along with the current members of the armed forces and veterans) are willing to give their lives to defend their right to publish it.

However, that does not mean we no longer have the right to criticize what we find offensive and in poor taste.

And as far as "Stretched to Thin" myth. My one uncle left for the Pacific in 1942, didn't get back home until 1946. My dad left for Europe in 1943, he didn't come home until 1947.

 

[carlrodd]

Could somebody give me an example of Rumsfeld's callous disregard for the difficulties faced by military people, please?

uh.....how about sending 100,000 servicemembers into a combat situation that almost all of the then current ranking general staff concluded required at least twice that amount? how about repeatedly ignoring recommendations from general staff for more troops on the ground during an occupation that was foolishly predicted to last only a fraction of the time it already has? how about insisting upon a transformation of the army that could only be safely and responsibly pursued during a time of peace? i laugh every time i hear any of them talk about adjusting troop levels based on the recommendations of commanders on the ground in iraq. since when did these people decide it makes sense to pay attention to military commanders. it must be politically convenient now.

 

[carlrodd]

Could somebody give me an example of Rumsfeld's callous disregard for the difficulties faced by military people, please?

oh i forgot one....how about telling bold faced lies to the american people and the military personnel that protect them in regard to bogus claims about iraqi ties to al-qaeda terrorists and possession of "wmds" in a say anything effort to push forward an invasion that should not have taken place, at least not when and how it did?

 

[Waitone]

The cartoonist could have made the same point with a different image. One pops to my mind is a rickshaw clad in hillbilly armor. Rummy stands next to it with a welding torch in his hand. A clip board charts the number of IED's.

He could have used a different image and didn't. He deserves what he gets.

 

[only1asterisk]

I see no sarcasm, irony, or humor.

David

 

[Leatherneck]

Whatever anyone comes up with, it is not as callous as this cartoon.

You may remember there were people picketing outside a military hospital not long ago, carrying signs saying, "Maimed for a lie."

Now there's something designed to raise a wounded man's morale! There's something you want to show a man who's just suffered a traumatic amputation!

That kind of thing does actual harm to the wounded. And this cartoon is part-and-parcel of that mindset, that our wounded are mere political pawns.

Exactly right, Vern. Anyone who doesn't understand how offensive it is to use a Quadraplegic for cheap political intent should remove their little yellow ribbon thingies from their bumper. You do not understand, let alone support, our troops. What do you think the six most senior officers in the Pentagon were trying to say?

TC

 

[cracked butt]

Either its tasteless and insulting or its too highbrow for me to understand, I'll go with the former.

Next up: Satyrical cartoons featuring aborted fetuses.