# Joint Chiefs of Staff: Get over your damn selves. (Cartoon) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 3, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778 "2006-02-03T02:44:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/61 "2006-02-03T19:04:05Z")
Ravenman, what would be your suggestion as to how the cartoonist could have made the point he’s making here without showing the injured “soldier”? Bearing in mind, it is not a simply “Rumsfeld bad!” point. ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/62 "2006-02-03T19:10:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m just looking at the cartoon, and I don’t see the trooper portrayed in a sympathetic light. I see a symbolic trooper in a _pathetic_ light, essentially as being a stooge in a shot at Rumsfeld. For all I know, based solely on looking at the cartoon, Toles is merely taking a shot at Rumsfeld, nothing more, nothing less. You’re oversimplying. It’s taking a shot at Rumsfield **for not caring about soldiers**. The cartoonist is supporting the soldiers by saying, This is how Rumsfield is treating you and it’s not right. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/63 "2006-02-03T19:24:13Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m just looking at the cartoon, and I don’t see the trooper portrayed in a sympathetic light. I see a symbolic trooper in a _pathetic_ light, essentially as being a stooge in a shot at Rumsfeld. For all I know, based solely on looking at the cartoon, Toles is merely taking a shot at Rumsfeld, nothing more, nothing less. Look at the cartoon and consider what he’s taking a shot at Rumsfeld _for_. The entire point of the cartoon is that Rumsfeld is being callous about the troops. How on Earth you’re translating that to Roles being callous about the troops entirely mystifies me. > [@](#): > > Taking political shots at someone for not caring about the troops doesn’t automatically put someone on the moral high ground: that ground is seized by actually displaying sympathy or humanizing the pain that is inflicted on the troops. As far as I can tell, the cartoon soldier is treated poorly by being, more or less, the butt of a joke. That interpretationg is utterly insupportable by the cartoon. How on Earth is the _soldier_ the butt of the joke? Is he being offered up for ridicule? Is the cartoonist criticizing that the soldier’s thoughts, or ideas, or beliefs? Is the cartoon commenting on the soldier in any way at all? > [@](#): > > The way I read the cartoon, the main effect of showing a disabled trooper (rather than a broken-down humvee or something) seems to be for shock value. I don’t think that that should earn Toles plaudits for standing up for the troops, or however you want to phrase it. Because a broken down humvee makes no sense in the context of the specific criticism being leveled at Rumsfeld. Sure, it’s shocking, but shocking is not the same as callous or disrespectful. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/64 "2006-02-03T19:25:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Finally, please, oh, please, will someone explain why the CJCS questioning the taste of a cartoon is somehow improperly wading into politics? I’m beginning to think that you all are ducking the question. Okay. Let’s say I’m a moderator on a small message board on the other side of the Interweb. One fine Monday morning, I browse through the MPSIMS on the SDMB, looking for something amusing to read. I find a MMP by the redoubtable **Rus deDay** , regaling us with the latest exploits of **Soupo** and **Catcho**. Having read it, I compose and post the following reply: > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > [Mod Hat ON] > > **Rue deDay** , how about some more of your bedtime stories? I really miss those. > > [/Mod Hat OFF] Not good form. Probably get me a warning (at the very least) from the real mods around here. And it makes me look like a putz, throwing my weight around (notwithstanding the fact that I don’t really have any). Coming from some guys whose weight, in their own milieu, is considerably more substantive than the hypothetical moderator on a hypothetical message board, the whiff of impropriety strikes me as correspondingly more stench-y. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/65 "2006-02-03T19:26:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Well, I’m not criticizing Toles for being anti-troops. It could well be that he has tremendous sympathy for the troops, and if he says he does, then I’ll take his word for it, no questions asked. > > I’m just looking at the cartoon, and I don’t see the trooper portrayed in a sympathetic light. I see a symbolic trooper in a _pathetic_ light, essentially as being a stooge in a shot at Rumsfeld. I find it interesting that you’re able to read so much into the cartoon that you know the person sitting in the bed is a paratrooper. > [@](#): > > Taking political shots at someone for not caring about the troops doesn’t automatically put someone on the moral high ground: that ground is seized by actually displaying sympathy or humanizing the pain that is inflicted on the troops. It was not Toles’s intent to “seize the moral high ground.” It was his intent to criticize Donald Rumsfeld. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/66 "2006-02-03T21:25:28Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > The cartoonist’s depiction of Rumsfeld’s callousness toward his soldiers != cartoonist is callous toward soldiers. > [@Rysto](#): > > It’s taking a shot at Rumsfield for not caring about soldiers. > [@Miller](#): > > The entire point of the cartoon is that Rumsfeld is being callous about the troops. Hold on, now. My interpretation of the cartoon is that it is mocking Rumsfeld for his comment on the **state of the US Army** , not the health of its soldiers: recent reports have said that the “thin green line” is breaking, but Rumsfeld responded, “The force is not broken. It’s battle-hardened. It’s not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons.” [Cite.](http://www.thestate.com/mld/cctimes/news/special_packages/iraq/13715918.htm?source=rss&channel=cctimes_iraq) I have taken this cartoon as mocking Rumsfeld view that the US Army isn’t strained to the breaking point. I come to this conclusion because, as the harpies have frequently stated, the soldier isn’t a particular soldier, it is one named “US Army.” I take it to mean that the illustration is personifying the state of the US Army, as a whole, as being equivalent to one really messed up soldier. I do not think that the cartoon is criticizing Rumsfeld for not being sympathetic to wounded soldiers – as I said, it is quite evidently related to the recent news of the state of the **whole military**. So, which is it, you guys? Is Rumsfeld, in the cartoon, speaking to a battered US Army? Or is he speaking to an individual soldier, or all the soldiers in the Army? If the latter, why isn’t the patient named “Sgt Smith” or “US Soldiers?” **LHD** – I just don’t see what is partisan about the JCS letter, and your explaination didn’t help much. To my recollection, the letter did not say, “Washington Post, you shouldn’t criticize the (Republican) Secretary of Defense!” It said, more or less, “The depiction of the wounded soldier was out of line!” The former I’d say would be partisan, the latter has everything to do with the respect that should/shouldn’t be shown to wounded soldiers – that’s an ethical question, not a political one. And, on your question about doctors, I didn’t realize it was actually a question: I think it is pretty damn obvious that making Rumsfeld into a doctor is a device used for comic intentions. There is something comical about a doctor making a diagnosis that is wildly off the mark. I don’t think there is much that is very funny, or, more importantly, in good taste about amputee soldiers a prop for a political zinger. I think wounded troops, and images thereof, deserve a little more respect than to be used in such situations, but I have no real objection to lawyer jokes, doctor jokes, or politician jokes – one can hardly say that they are as deserving of sympathy as someone who has had their arms and legs blown off in war. Do you disagree? > [@RickJay](#): > > I find it interesting that you’re able to read so much into the cartoon that you know the person sitting in the bed is a paratrooper. I find it interesting that you are so unfamiliar with the dictionary that you are unable to recognize that “trooper” is an acceptable English word for [soldier,](http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=trooper) whether or not it is common military nomenclature. **kaylasdad99** : When come back, make some fucking sense. That is the worst analogy I’ve heard in a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/67 "2006-02-03T21:32:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **kaylasdad99** : When come back, make some fucking sense. That is the worst analogy I’ve heard in a long time. Your mistake here, **Kay’sdad** is that you tried to use an analogy, which uses symbolic thinking, to explain something to someone who cannot understand the simple symbolism of a political cartoon. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/68 "2006-02-03T21:39:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So, which is it, you guys? Is Rumsfeld, in the cartoon, speaking to a battered US Army? Or is he speaking to an individual soldier, or all the soldiers in the Army? It’s certainly not the middle one. Can’t it mean both a battered US Army _and_ all the soldiers within? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/69 "2006-02-03T22:02:02Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > It seems to me some people are more offended by the way the cartoon is using the plight of the troops to point out how shitty they’re being treated than the fact that the troops are getting the shaft in the first place. > > And THAT, if anything, is “anti-troops.” I’d say you get the whole point. The cartoon does not disrespect the soldiers at all. It points to the disrespect they have gotten (for years) from their own government. As far as _I_ can tell, any arguments that it shows callous disrespect for the troops is just a lame as righty talking point. After all, we don’t dare allow anything that paints “the gods” in a bad light. So here we are. Anything that accuses the government of shafting the troops is now a “failure to support the troops”. If these soldiers were being treated as they should be, then the cartoon would have probably never been created. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/70 "2006-02-03T22:04:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Hold on, now. My interpretation of the cartoon is that it is mocking Rumsfeld for his comment on the **state of the US Army** , not the health of its soldiers: recent reports have said that the “thin green line” is breaking, but Rumsfeld responded, “The force is not broken. It’s battle-hardened. It’s not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons.” [Cite.](http://www.thestate.com/mld/cctimes/news/special_packages/iraq/13715918.htm?source=rss&channel=cctimes_iraq) > > I have taken this cartoon as mocking Rumsfeld view that the US Army isn’t strained to the breaking point. I come to this conclusion because, as the harpies have frequently stated, the soldier isn’t a particular soldier, it is one named “US Army.” I take it to mean that the illustration is personifying the state of the US Army, as a whole, as being equivalent to one really messed up soldier. “Battle-hardened” is not a term one normally applies to vehicles and equipment. Tanks and planes do not get “battle-hardened.” Rumsfeld’s comment was about the troops as a whole, and that’s what the comic is targetting. The problem being faced by the military right now is primarily one of insufficient man-power. We have too few soldiers with too much work to do. Rumsfeld’s comment demonstrates a callous disregard for this state. He is claiming that the very state that makes out troops unready to face a new threat is, in fact, evidence of their ability to face a new threat. The soldier in the comic is representative of that: he is as unready to go back into combat as a soldier can be, short of being in a body bag. But Rumsfeld looks at him and says he’s “battle hardened.” The callousness being needled here is Rumsfeld’s (and, by extension, the whole Bush administration’s) disinterest in the material welfare of the armed forces, as opposed to their usefulness as a tool of international political policy. The comic is showing Rumsfeld being dismissive of one soldier’s wounds as an analogy of his dismissiveness of the entire armed forces serious problems. Clear now? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/71 "2006-02-03T23:01:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > **LHD** – I just don’t see what is partisan about the JCS letter, and your explaination didn’t help much. To my recollection, the letter did not say, “Washington Post, you shouldn’t criticize the (Republican) Secretary of Defense!” It said, more or less, “The depiction of the wounded soldier was out of line!” The former I’d say would be partisan, the latter has everything to do with the respect that should/shouldn’t be shown to wounded soldiers – that’s an ethical question, not a political one. Except that it’s inherently a political involvement. What kind of cartoonist is Toles? is he an ethical cartoonist? Is his job title “nonpartisan cartoonist”? No: it’s “political cartoonist,” and he’s making a cartoon with political implications. The JCS response to his cartoon is a by-now classic Administration tactic: when criticized, go on the offense by attacking the character of the critic instead of addressing teh criticism head-on. > [@](#): > > And, on your question about doctors, I didn’t realize it was actually a question: I think it is pretty damn obvious that making Rumsfeld into a doctor is a device used for comic intentions. There is something comical about a doctor making a diagnosis that is wildly off the mark. I don’t think there is much that is very funny, or, more importantly, in good taste about amputee soldiers a prop for a political zinger. I think wounded troops, and images thereof, deserve a little more respect than to be used in such situations, but I have no real objection to lawyer jokes, doctor jokes, or politician jokes – one can hardly say that they are as deserving of sympathy as someone who has had their arms and legs blown off in war. Do you disagree? Do I disagree that wounded soldiers deserve more sympathy than doctors? I think that’s irrelevant, but sure. The suffering always get more sympathy from me than the non-suffering. What baffles me is that you think turning Rumsfeld into a doctor has comic intentions, but seem to think that the comedy of a misdiagnosis could work **without a patient to diagnose**. You suggest that wounded troops deserve more respect than doctors. I don’t agree: everyone deserves respect equally, and if I were a wounded soldier who had a limited amount of respect to dole out, I’d be doling it out to my doctors before I doled it out to fellow wounded soldiers. The doctors that are being dissed by the cartoon, keep in mind, are the doctors who patch up our wounded soldiers. (That is, assuming that you don’t understand the symbolic lexicon of political cartoons). Disabled American Veterans have said through their spokesperson that they absolutely don’t find the cartoon offensive. Why do you think that is? Does that not give you pause? Were I a wounded soldier, I think I’d be furious at people who think I’m so thin-skinned that I’ve got to be defended from the idea of an iconic wounded soldier providing the symbolic foil for a criticism of the administration. Wounded soldiers aren’t hothouse violets. They’re not even symbols. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/72 "2006-02-03T23:57:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > How many wounded do we have in this war, now? Might be hard to fit all those individuals into a one-panel cartoon. Even if you could, would you want to? Didn’t a newsreader get in harrangued with the usual “commie librul traitor” epithets for, you know, reading 1000 names? If he’d drawn an actual soldier it would have made the soldier a “prop” and been “disrespectful”. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![fushj00mang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d26b3c/32.png) [@fushj00mang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fushj00mang)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/73 "2006-02-04T23:32:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Nothing except a sense of propriety. They were put on the JCS to serve the nation, not to push a political agenda. Is saying what roughly equates to “Please don’t say or do things which are offensive to our wounded veterans” to a political “agenda”? If so, then tell me how “Let’s get more armor to the troops” isn’t a political agenda. As far as the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, that letter IS the position of the DoD. In essense, “We don’t give two shits if you support the war or not. Don’t joke at the troops. Don’t use the troops as a punchline. Say it another way.” ---
**Author:** ![fushj00mang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d26b3c/32.png) [@fushj00mang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fushj00mang)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/74 "2006-02-04T23:35:07Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Even if you could, would you want to? > > Didn’t a newsreader get in harrangued with the usual “commie librul traitor” epithets for, you know, reading 1000 names? > > If he’d drawn an actual soldier it would have made the soldier a “prop” and been “disrespectful”. > > -Joe Actually, I think that Dan Rather got the ‘commie liberal trator’ tag when he tried to pass off fake news as real news. I, for one, was touched when he read the names of the first 1,000 killed in the war. It was, for me, a good sign when there were names on the news, not merely “One Marine was killed today in a…” or “Two soldiers were killed and another three wounded when…” ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/75 "2006-02-04T23:35:39Z")
> [@fushj00mang](#): > > As far as the Joint Chiefs Of Staff, that letter IS the position of the DoD. In essense, “We don’t give two shits if you support the war or not. Don’t joke at the troops. Don’t use the troops as a punchline. Say it another way.” But the troops are not being joked at. The troops are not being used as a punchline. Rumsfeld is. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/76 "2006-02-05T05:22:42Z")
> [@fushj00mang](#): > > Is saying what roughly equates to “Please don’t say or do things which are offensive to our wounded veterans” to a political “agenda”? It is when you are taking offense on someone else’s behalf (note that Disabled American Veterans is on record as having no problem with the cartoon) and when you are baldly misrepresenting the intended meaning of the cartoon in order to find grounds to take offense at it with the not-so-subtle agenda of trying to squelch things that resemble overt criticism or debate in the mass media. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/77 "2006-02-05T05:52:21Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > It is … > when you are baldly misrepresenting the intended meaning of the cartoon in order to find grounds to take offense at it… Giving the Joint Chiefs the benefit of the doubt regarding motive, it’s possible that each and every one of them is the dumbest son of bitch to ever hold his respective position. ---
**Author:** ![Lama\_Pacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Lama\_Pacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lama_Pacos)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/78 "2006-02-05T09:15:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I cannot stand Donald Rumsfeld at all, but I think using the tragedy of troops losing arms and legs to make joke/political dig at someone – even a guy as obnoxious as Rumsfeld – is disrespectful of the troops who have suffered (because, of course, of the horrendous agenda of Rumsfeld and Bush). What? So you can’t use the consequences of someone’s actions against them if the consequences are too horrific? What kind of accountability is there in this? Honestly, I can’t even imagine how anyone could find this cartoon offensive without either being somehow disgusted by amputees or completely incapable of English comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/79 "2006-02-05T12:16:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Hold on, now. My interpretation of the cartoon is that it is mocking Rumsfeld for his comment on the **state of the US Army** , not the health of its soldiers: recent reports have said that the “thin green line” is breaking, but Rumsfeld responded, “The force is not broken. It’s battle-hardened. It’s not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons.” [Cite.](http://www.thestate.com/mld/cctimes/news/special_packages/iraq/13715918.htm?source=rss&channel=cctimes_iraq) > > I have taken this cartoon as mocking Rumsfeld view that the US Army isn’t strained to the breaking point. I come to this conclusion because, as the harpies have frequently stated, the soldier isn’t a particular soldier, it is one named “US Army.” I take it to mean that the illustration is personifying the state of the US Army, as a whole, as being equivalent to one really messed up soldier. > > I do not think that the cartoon is criticizing Rumsfeld for not being sympathetic to wounded soldiers – as I said, it is quite evidently related to the recent news of the state of the **whole military**. This absolutely hits the nail on the head. Rumsfeld’s comment was delivered in response to an assertion that the army was being stretched thin. It was about recruiting targets and a potential problem with re-enlistment. So, yes, it was about the overall “health” of the army, but in terms of its size, in terms of its depth of experience. Rumsfeld’s contention–whether you agree with it or not–was that the current force’s experience in battle makes it superior to another less-experienced force of equal size. “Don’t worry fellows,” he seems to be saying. “We may be fewer in number, but boy are we tough!” Call this bullshit, but it has NOTHING directly to do with our treatment of or sympathy for wounded soldiers. That, in a nutshell, is what makes this callous and offensive. Toles essentially searched for a metaphor for a depleted army, for the force’s effectiveness as a whole, and his answer came in the form of a quadruple amputee soldier. So, was the cartoon about how callously our wounded troops have been treated? If so, then it was a non sequitur to use this Rumsfeld “punch line,” since it was not in response to this issue. Was it addressing our “obviously” stretched-thin troops, whose condition Rummy obtusely ignores? Then try to find a different symbol than a quadruple amputee, try to set up the pay-off line with some other example of a “less-than-whole” entity. It goes without saying that Toles has the right to express himself this way. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t offensive, intentionally or not. By the way (minor point), part of the problem is Toles’ style (or lack thereof). There are editorial cartoonists who could have drawn that soldier so artfully, with such obvious pathos and sympathy, that I believe the response could well have been different. If you don’t want a figure to be mistakenly interpreted as an objective of derision or indifference, try not to depict him as a demented Weeble. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2006, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778/80 "2006-02-05T15:15:10Z")
I am (almost) furious at the way the “usual suspects” are so inflamed by this cartoon and what it says (according to their partisan and twisted) logic. It’s simple. The cartoon is saying that the troops are being shafted by their own government. They are not “battle hardened”, they are stretched too thin and are being used up and worn out. They keep getting rotated back to the war (a war with no clear goal and no foreseeable end and no justification). They get their benefits slashed. Their VA entitlements are disappearing. They can’t even get out at the end of their tour (thanks to the stoploss or back door draft). They have to deal with foreclosures and bacnkruptcies at home (thanks to the bankruptcy laws that the credit companies bought from Bush). They end up homeless and on the street, if they do somehow manage to get out. They have to wait months just to get an interview with a doctor. In short, the troops are being fucked, and the righties here are more upset about a cartoon. That’s a great set of priorities you have, people. Maybe you all could put your impressive writing skills to better use, and start asking your Congresscritters what the hell they plan to do for the troops (other than their usual “support da trewpz” bullshit speeches). Instead of crying about a cartoon, write to the Congress critters and show some real support by asking them “what have you done for the troops lately”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/joint-chiefs-of-staff-get-over-your-damn-selves-cartoon/342778.md?page=5)