Am I the only one who sees the soldier as representing the Army as a whole and Rummy is denying his non-combat-ready condition? It is an Allegory.
In addition to running the letter from the Chariman, the Post also ran a separate article regarding the issue. From that article:
The article also quoted the deputy communications director for Disabled American Veterans, who had no problem with the cartoon, and closed with commentary from the artist himself: “It is the nature of cartooning that someone can read an analogy a cartoon uses to mean things other than what was intended. The only way to avoid that problem is to draw cartoons that have no impact.”
I see the same thing most people in this thread do - a pointed shot at Rumsfeld that doesn’t demean the troops.
Boycott the Washington Post!!!
Death to the Cartoonist!!!
Oh, sorry, that’s the Danish thread.
Actually, I had 2 reactions, one positive (funny jab at Rumsfeld) and one negative (empathy for troops), both valid. I think the cartoon is ok, but if I were personally drawing it, I would try not to involve an amputee because it doesn’t quite feel right.
Note: The “Death” part of that last post is a joke. (hope that’s not against the rules)
What Mr Moto said. Freedom of speech, including freedom to respond, complain, whine about how other people use their freedom of speech. The cartoon and the response are both examples of it.
The JCS are soldiers just like the rest of the guys fighting and dying over in Iraq. They do not get to decide how much money they get to spend and honestly how they get to spend the money their respective departments get is extremely limited. Decisions about when to go to war and the funding for said wars is not determined by them. When Bush and the U.S. Congress decided to take military action in Iraq the only appropriate and acceptable thing the JCS could do is to begin planning the operations. They aren’t permitted to set policy nor do they have financial control over the military (that’s in the hands of the SecDef and the Congress/President.)
To blame them for any problems when it comes to getting body armor distributed makes just as much sense as blaming the troops on the ground who don’t have the body armor. Pentagon funding and spending on programs is to a great deal delineated and specified by Congress and the SecDef.
Furthermore, just because someone puts on the uniform does not mean they forfeit being American. I served as an officer in the U.S. Army for twenty years, and during that time I wrote to my hometown newspaper (Richmond Times-Dispatch), and I also voted and participated in politics just like any United States citizen would. When you join the military you do forfeit certain rights, for example you become legally bound to follow orders and to go where you are told when you are told to do so, whether moving was in your plan or comfortable for you is a moot point. What you don’t sacrifice is the freedom of speech (outside of the chain of command, obviously) or the freedom to participate in the political process as an American citizen.
Personally I don’t find serious fault with either side for this affair.
I think that using certain images, no matter the reason, is in bad taste. Take the recent Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad. I think that was in bad taste. Thinking something is in bad taste doesn’t mean you think it should be banned, that you think it should be restricted legally, it just means you find it to be in bad taste. Even if the political point made is a good one, or a correct one, you can still find the manner in which it was made to be distasteful.
I don’t know the personal history of the current JCS, but I would not be surprised if they’ve seen combat and its devastating results with their own eyes. I’m sure they have seen first hand the wounded and dying. From their perspective (one which I share as someone who has also seen these things) I can see how the cartoonization of something like that seems inappropriate. I found Rumsfeld’s comments to be in bad taste, as well. However I think certain things are too serious or too grave to be turned into a cartoon, a medium which by its very nature makes things appear less serious or more comical than they actually are. I wouldn’t be surprised if the JCS weren’t too happy about Rumsfeld’s comment either. Remember it was a Pentagon report to which he was replying when he made those comments.
When the JCS saw the cartoon that they disagreed with, they wrote a respectful letter to the editor. In it, they outlined their opinions and why they had those opinions. They maintained a respect for the freedom of the press in doing that.
To me, I think that’s a perfect example of how to respond to something you disagree with. It’s a far cry more dignified and proper than the spit-spewing and vitriolic attacks you get from politicians when they reply to things they do not like, and far more proper than how guys like Bill O’Reilly act.
Tom Toles made a political point in a manner he felt to be acceptable. The JCS disagreed that it was the proper way to make such a point. So what? They disagreed. I think we are going in the wrong direction as a country when we have to resort to insults or derogatory comments towards one side or the other simply because they engaged in the act of disagreement. If you have one side which you agree with and another you disagree with on this matter, that’s one thing, but to attack one side simply because you think that they shouldn’t even voice their opinions is an assualt on the very environment that our society tries to promote in order to have a properly functioning democratic government.
Oh Geez… and I thought the muslims barely had a good reason for complaining about cartoons. (the similarities between fundamentalist on both sides amazes me always)
I agree with most that the cartoon is not offensive and hits the point perfectly. Maybe the cartoonist should have put an army t-shirt on the patient. Make it even clearer to the subtlety handicapped.
As I said in post #4, I think that’s exactly right. Look at the “patient chart” at the end of the hospital bed, where it says “US Army” where the patient’s name would be.
The figure of the amputee isn’t meant to represent any individual wounded soldier, but rather the US Army as a whole, just as you said.
Toles is doing what an editorial cartoonist is supposed to be doing. He’s making a point with a certain directness and piquancy. If people get riled, it’s because they don’t like the political point he’s making – not because of his “callous depiction of those who volunteered to defend this nation.”
Just wondering, what are the number of wounded now? The strange thing is that every casualty report I have heard is for the dead only, but rarely have I heard about how many wounded or seriously wounded. Perhaps I have missed these but is this cartoon pointing at an ugly secret not talked much about?
Medicine has surely improved since, say, Vietnam which means they can piece together damaged bodies more easily and save those who might not have made it decades ago. Even alive, what is the average quality of life for the wounded of Iraq?
This cartoon makes me wonder how many people have been wounded since the start of the war and how many will never really recover?
Perhaps that needs to be seen in the light of some of Rumsfelds comments and in a way the Cartoon does that for me.
I’d say it’s a tie. The administration is offended at Tom Toles for depicting a crippled soldier. And Toles is offended at the administration for crippling soldiers.
Current figures for US troops wounded in Iraq are 16,549 (official total), or 15,000–48,100 (estimated total).
I have no idea why the range in the “estimated” figure is so big, or why it should be any different from the “official” figure. Are there some kinds of injuries that just aren’t tracked? E.g., superficial ones that don’t interfere with execution of duties? Does that really count as “wounded”? Are there a significant number of more serious (but still not disabling) injuries that soldiers simply aren’t reporting? Your guess is as good as mine.
True, but as a member of the US Army, when you do write a letter to the editor it would seem proper to make it clear that you are an individual. That your view do not represent the official policy or views of the US Army.
Had the chiefs written individual letters on plain paper making clear that they were speaking only for themselves and not the US government it would have been much batter I think.
Citing plenty of sources Google comes up with easily.
Short answer. Pentagon word games to keep the figures low.
Uh…Rumsfeld did indeed use wounded soldiers to score political points. Specifically, he sought to defuse questions about casualties affecting the Army by dismissing the human cost as making the Army “battle hardened”. It’s corporate ad-speak, and disrespectful toward our nation’s fungible assests. I mean, soldiers.
The cartoonist is merely calling him on it. If you really care about “using wounded soldiers to score political points”, I’d think that you’d speak out against Rumsfeld in your own way.
Sailboat
I caught this part of O’Reilly last night as well.
There was also a vet, who had lost parts of his legs from action in Iraq, and even though Bill tried hard to get the guy to condemn the cartoon, he wouldn’t do it. He said he thought it was a little harsh but didn’t mind that it was published.
There is a better version of this cartoon. I’ve looked for the image online but can’t find it.
Ralph Steadman did a cartoon called “The High Price of Meat”. I think it makes the point better and it is far more graphic than the rather sterile Battle Hardened.
That’s how THEY “support the troops”.
As to the Joint Chiefs… the rule is, when a government employee speaks or writes a letter or gives an opinion, they are NOT to use their title, job description or office in a way that would give any appearance of representing the official government stance. In writing that letter to the newspaper AS the joint chiefs of staff, all those generals and admirals broke that rule. They could be disciplined for it. Finally, if they really give a shit about the wounded, then they can get off their asses and start conducting some hardcore inpsections of the various army hospitals and facilities and see what sort of care the woulnded are really getting. THAT is their job, not writing letters to the editor.
Do you know for certain that they do not do this?
Cite?
The Joint Chiefs collectively are advisors to the President on military affairs and don’t have command responsibility as Joint Chiefs. Each of them individually is the top of the chain of command of his or her individual service. So maybe in that capacity some or all of them would track the adequacy of medical services in their branch.