I thought the cartoon was a bit harsh, but that’s what political cartoons do.
The thing that bothers me is that the stock reaction to any criticism of any aspect of the war is “you don’t support the troops!”
Not supporting the war != not supporting the troops. Not supplying them with body armor and keeping them over there longer than they were originally promised is not supporting the troops.
I think the cartoon was a poor way to express the plight of wounded soldiers.
What I’m especially proud of is the JCS. They’ve done what any other American citizen does and ought to do when they disagree with something they see in the newspaper. They wrote a letter to the editor, and in that letter they expressed their opinions.
This segment I’m especially proud of:
What exception can anyone really take with that? Can you disagree that it was callous? Sure. You can disagree with their opinions, but to say that it reflects poorly on the JCS that they wrote this letter is ridiculous. They were expressing their opinions on an editorial cartoon, and they even acknowledged the nature of the editorial page and that The Post is free to address whatever topic they want. In expressing their opinion they were extremely respectful of the freedom of the press and even supportive of it. Just because they happened to disagree with the depictions seen in the cartoon doesn’t reflect badly on them.
They’ve set an example that all Americans should follow, they’ve addressed something they disagree with in a direct, to the point letter, and in so doing they maintained respect for the institution and the people they were disagreeing with. Compare this to the vitriol and stupidity you get from your average Dem or Republican politician when they go after each other and the JCS looks like saints.
The JCSs have the right, as citizens, to write all the letters they want to the newspapers. But they didn’t, they wrote as the JCSs. These guys are supposed to be non-political in their official duties, therefore they should not be taking stands (except as private citizens) on political matters. If they write a letter and sign it John Smith, I have no problem with it. If they sign it, John Smith Joint Chief of Staff, then they’re using their non-partisan position to lend weight to a political opinion and I think that’s inappropriate.
There is nothing prohibiting an officer in the U.S. military from expressing their opinion in a letter. Whether they do it as “John Smith” or “Captain John Smith, U.S. Army.”
Nothing except a sense of propriety. They were put on the JCS to serve the nation, not to push a political agenda.
No, there’s nothing stopping them, but it sets a different tone. “John Smith’s” letter sets out his own personal opinion. “Captain John Smith, U.S. Army’s” letter represents his position, his command, and the U.S. Army as a whole, not his personal opinion.
They weren’t pushing a political agenda, they were expressing themselves. When that intereferes with anyone’s rights, or interferes with their responsibilities as JCS you will have a point, right now you do not.
It adds some credibility to a letter concerning a military matter. I guess it’s bad form for a doctor to write in on a medical article and sign it, “Bob Sacamano, MD”?
I will say that by writing as ‘The Joint Chiefs’ and using the second person in the letter they were expressing a point as the United States military rather than as individuals. And that should pretty much be off-limits. I generally find that, while individuals in the military have the full right to opinions, the military as a group should be as apolitical as possible. And that’s the line the JCS came close to with this letter. If the commanding general had written a personal note of protest I’d find that different. But writing as an arm of the military? It’s a close thing.
They weren’t writing it as an arm of the military. The JCS doesn’t represent the entire military by any means, and anyone who thinks that doesn’t understand the U.S. military. They were writing as the most senior officers. The military as a whole doesn’t take political stances. Even that, however, doesn’t prohibit the military from voicing itself.
But what a lot of folks seem to not get is that the cartoon is lambasting Donald Rumsfeld and is not at all trying to diss soldiers. Again, not supporting the war !=not supporting the troops, and I’m getting real sick of this asinine distortion.
If Pat Tillman had become a quad amputee in combat (instead of being killed)…then using HIS likeness (and ID on the hospital chart) to make a point would be the kind of outrageous action that the JCS could have a legitimate point about.
Point taken. Of course the two linked articles clearly identified the cartoonist as well.
Doctors are not civil servants who are mandated to be apolitical. If they want to add “MD” to a signature regarding medical issues, I don’t see a problem. I’ve seen many doctors who are pompous enough to sign “MD” after their names on opinion pieces not related to medicine, but that’s another story.
Martin, Ted Toles is* a decorated war veteran. If he signed each of his cartoons with his army credentials, including signing this cartoon with his credentials, how would you feel about that? I suspect you’d be all up in arms at how he was using his war-hero-status to promote a political point you disagreed with. I’m almost certain, given Mr. Moto’s responses in previous threads to politicians with army credentials, that he’d object.
Why is it okay for the JCS to use their army credentials in promoting their political point?
If they wrote the letter off the clock, I don’t mind. If my tax dollars helped to fund that letter, it pisses me off.
Daniel
I really don’t see how the Chiefs were being political in writing a letter protesting what, in my view, is a pretty callous depiction of a service member. They were not saying that the WaPo had no right to publish such things; they were not saying that the WaPo should not criticize Rumsfeld, they were not saying “vote Republican,” they were not saying that those who make light of the suffering of troops were unpatriotic.
Is there some rule out there that when someone puts on a military uniform, they lose the ability to make judgments about what is in poor taste? If the Post ran an editorial cartoon depicting servicemembers by using racial stereotypes – like an Asian-American sailor who has buck teeth and thick glasses – I don’t think it would be “political” for a general to write in protest at the depiction of a servicemember. Why is it political when a general writes to protest a perceived distasteful depiction of a severely disabled servicemember?
Not at all. A doctor writing in on a medical article has knowledge of the subject, and would be expressing his view of that practice in terms of his/her medical knowledge. The JCS also have knowledge of that subject, but are applying that to an opinion, not a factual, issue.
The case is also different in that the JCS are, well, the Chiefs. It’s more comparable to the Surgeon General writing in an opinion piece with “Bob Sacamano, Surgeon General”. Unless he’s writing using knowledge from his position to explain a factual dispute, then he is using his own personal opinion - and as relevant as it may be, it is still a purely *personal * opinion-based letter, and as such he should not reference himself as representing a *body *.
Firstly, as people have pointed out, the servicemember is not supposed to be a person - rather, the person in the bed is supposed to represent the entire U.S. Army, not a single soldier.
Secondly, what about his depiction is distasteful? He has no arms or legs. He is on a hospital bed, but his wounds are covered. He is not shown in a humiliating light. He is not being mocked. Again, what about his depiction do you find distasteful? Do you think all pictures of quadruple amputees are distasteful?
I think Mr. Moto’s feelings about this cartoon are perfectly valid. He finds it tasteless. He doesn’t want to supress it, or send the cartoonist to Gitmo; he just finds it tasteless. That’s fine.
Martin Hyde, however, is being deliberately obtuse in insisting that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in sending a letter authored and signed in their official capacities, are not giving the appearance of speaking for the military as a whole. They run the military. Who else would speak for the military?
I just reread Mr. Moto’s comments and realized that he didn’t say he agreed with the JCS’s decision to write the letter in their official capacity. I apologize for implying that you had a double-standard, Moto.
The stance about the comic may be valid, but I think it’s a flawed stance. It seems to me to be another example of people being offended on behalf of folks who aren’t themselves offended. Note that the representative from the Disabled American Veterans group was absolutely not offended by the cartoon. Being offended by the use of a person as a symbol in a political cartoon strikes me as bizarre. I know lenty of doctors; should I be offended by the cartoon’s use of a doctor as a symbol for a crappy lying political appointee?
Daniel