Re: the reaction of the JCS. Count me as feeling some some discomfort, yet I know I would have seen no prob with a letter from various top officers of the services including the Chiefs, as officers rather than as the JCS. I guess it’s the institutional nature that kind of creates this reaction.
Re: tasteless or offensive representations. Miller and Stratocaster sequentially treat one of the sources of the “offensive representation” – how do you set up an allegory for a depleted, worn out, force, that will work out in the constraints of a one-panel gag cartoon?
Which is not to say you couldn’t, but you’d end up with something far more complex than what Toles usually draws – We could, say, show Maudlin’s ol’ Joe and Willie all ragged, beat up, dirty and hungry, and portray Rummy as a rear-guard brass hat all nicely pressed and riding in comfort. And even then we’d have someone missing the point and arguing that our Army IS well-fed, well-clothed, etc. and thus the cartoon is misleading and giving false impressions, anyway.
I believe in respect, not idolatry, for those in the service (I once was in). DoD can indeed ask me: “Don’t use the [image of the] troops as a punchline, say it some other way”. And I can tell DoD, fine, I will do what I can but I do NOT acknowledge an implicit qualifier “ever” in the first part of that request; how I deal with the second half, you won’t always like it. Where do we draw the line, is the question, and we’ll often disagree. Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 includes some quite unflattering depictions of various AAF officers. That in no way diminishes the stature of and the respect and honor due to Doper Simmons and his comrades who were flying over Western Europe in 1944-45.
Dude, you need to take a deep breath. Asserting something with (almost) fury won’t somehow make it true. Even Toles’ “footer” sub-cartoon makes it clear he is responding to Rummy’s contentions concerning how thin (or not) our troops are being stretched. Take a moment and actually read all the cites. This is about recruiting efforts and re-enlistment, as much as you’d like this particular topic to be about something else.
Every single one of your points can be true, and that still doesn’t change the fact that the particular political topic Toles has put on the table relates to the number of troops we have in Iraq, as well as their level of experience. It is not about how benefits are being cut, or doctor visits denied, nor is it about foreclosures or bankruptcy or pointless wars. You’re creating a straw man. Try not to be a usual suspect yourself, my friend.
I, for one, have offered no opinion on whether or not the troops are “being fucked,” so please don’t jump to conclusions regarding what I think is important or not. You’ve created a false dilemma. One could find this cartoon offensive and still think the troops are being mistreated. One could believe that Toles should find a different metaphor for a depleted army than a quadruple amputee and still believe that our troops deserve better treatment. You don’t want this to be a knee jerk “choose your side of the aisle” exercise in partisan politics? Then don’t fashion the argument to falsely present that choice.
It’s funny you mention Willie and Joe. Those cartoons were exactly what I was picturing when I mention cartoonists of greater skill who would have made it crystal clear with their art where their sentiments resided. Mauldin was the best. Those cartoons were at once funny and heartbreaking. Talk about a real artist.
Oliphant, a cartoonist whose politics I often disagree with, is another master. He say so much in a single panel, with artwork that is often just breathtaking (if you love this genre as I do). Toles is a ham-fisted piker by comparison.
Are you suggesting that the “basis of a cartoonist’s work” isn’t somehow linked to how skillfully and artfully he communicates his message? I did say this was a minor point in my earlier post, by the way–the point being that an artist capable of greater nuance could well have successfully pulled the same sentiment off.
Independent as in, they are two separate guys, working without collaborating? Um, yes, indeed they are. Independent as in, they can’t serve as a point of comparison for each other relative to their skills? Um, I don’t think so. That would be quite an unusual restriction. I’m not sure what your point is, actually.
Not sure why you’re directing this at me, but I’m game. I disagree. The Joint Chiefs went out of their way to make it clear they were not suggesting any political position was off base. They merely objected to the use of wounded soldiers as a prop in a cartoon speaking to some issue ancillary to wounded soldiers. Can’t see the harm.
It does raise the question if they would have made a similar complaint about a cartoonist using wounded soldiers in a pro-war capacity. If the comic had been criticizing Cindy Sheehan instead of Donald Rumsfeld, would we have heard from the Joint Chiefs? Surely, there must be some similar example of using wounded veterans to score political points for the opposite position. Did the JOS weigh in on that? And if not, isn’t that evidence of political bias in a position where we can least afford it?
Yes, if there were a dehumanizing depiction of a imbecilic Weeble of an amputee used as a prop for a pro-war cartoon, and the Joint Chiefs ignored that depiction, it would indeed be hypocritical. I’m not trying to be glib here; the nature of the depiction, and whether or not the wounded soldier was essential to the message and not just a prop for some unrelated idea, are both important distinctions, it seems to me, regardless of the artist’s political leanings.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. The amputee was drawn that way so that it was obvious that it did not represent “a soldier” but “the troops” - as has been pointed out already many times in this thread.
The message being “battle-hardened is a poor, and dehumanizing, way to refer to the troops”.
Uh, what? You think his point is “Oh, Rumsfeld is bad! Baaad! I’ll show this by making him look like he’s uncaring about the troops!”. His whole point is that battle-hardened is an extremely poor and uncaring way to refer to the troops - some of whom are injured, and injured severely. How would that point be made without showing an actually injured person?
I agree, his political leanings have nothing to do with this - it’s a question of taste. I suggest to you that having the injured character was necessary, and relevant, to the point being made; that the dehumanized soldier again was necessary in order for him to represent “the troops”; and that the JCS were wrong to respond, in official capacity, to a question of taste.
I don’t know that I need to read any cites, when I can see the original cartoon for myself. To me, it is pretty self explanatory.
I would say it is those who call this “not supporting the troops” or calling it “Nazi propaganda” are the ones who are searching for metaphors, not necessarily me. Which is more offensive to a Reasonable Person? A cartoon, or the issues and “policies” (to be generous) it is illustrating?
But, once again, it is the good decent American patriots against the commie liberal America haters. I doubt Toles picked this image so as to protect any delicate sensibilities. After all, those who are so up in arms about it don’t seem to be bothered by the actual war itself, or what it does to the people we send there. So, I would think that the “outrage” is false and is partisan.
In what way was the soldier dehumanized by the comic? What specific elements of the comic communicated to you, the reader, that the soldier was supposed to be thought of as less than a person? Obvious amputee jokes aside, I suppose.
Are you aware that the soldier was drawn in Toles customary style of representing people who are not meant to be specific charictures? If you are, it seems you are complaining that Toles is not a talented enough artist to be allowed to draw wounded veterans. Otherwise, how is drawing a soldier in his customary style demeaning to veterans?
Okay, this is more of a general rebuttal than a question. The soldier is absolutely essential to the point being made in the comic. Rumsfeld talked about the army being “battle hardened.” This is not a comment about any aspect of the army other than the troops themselves. Tanks and planes do not get “battle hardened.” Rumsfeld made that comment in response to questions about the armed forces readiness after the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have dangerously over-extended our forces. Part of the reason we’re overextended is due to the casualties we’ve sustained. Toles could have, I suppose, rebutted Rumsfeld by showing soldiers who are very tired, but this would be an extremely difficult way to get the point across, as someone who is just “tired” can, in theory, rest up and be ready to go again. This undersells the point Toles is trying to make: our troops aren’t just tired, many of them have been wounded to the point where it is not possible for them to ever serve again. These people can’t “rest up” and serve some more, they need to be replaced. And they aren’t. Our troops aren’t “battle hardened,” they’re over-worked, under-manned, and as a result, a lot of them are coming home disabled or dead. Rumsfeld calling them battlehardened is objectionable because he’s taking what is currently they’re greatest disability, and trying to spin it as an advantage. That’s the point of the cartoon: the soldier in it is manifestly incapable of further service, but Dr. Rumsfeld is saying he’s battle-hardened, that because of his wounds, he’s tougher and more dangerous. Because of his wounds, he’s more fit to serve than he was before he was wounded. That’s the point of the comic, and it is one that absolutely could not be made without the inclusion of a wounded vet.
On the somewhat seperate issue of the JOS letter, the problem is that they are commenting on a political statement. Their protestations of neutrality to the contrary, that makes their letter inherently political in nature. Not only because of what they have commented on, but because of what they haven’t commented on. It’s not at all uncommon for the hawks in this conflict to invoke the specter of the wounded vet as a reason for continuing to fight, so that their sacrifice won’t have been for nothing. Has the JOS spoken out against this? Have they singled anyone out the way they’ve singled out Toles? Even if they have, there’s no way everyone hearing about this can know. It creates the appearance of partiality, which is almost as bad as partiality itself. The JOS needs to remain apolitical, both in fact and in appearance. By commenting on a political matter, even couched in apolitical terms, they lose the appearance of impartiality.
Oh, for fuck’s sake, I’m not suggesting otherwise. In fact, I’m explicitly saying he used an amputee soldier as a metaphor for a depleted army.
This is an enormous stretch. The whole issue was whether or not the troops are a sufficient force in size for the job. Not whether or not they’re being treated well, which can be a whole other topic. That’s not what Rummy’s quote was in response to. Sorry, repeating this won’t make it so. Toles used an amputee soldier as a metaphor to make a point unrelated to amputee soldiers. You see the point? Some find this use of an image as a prop to set up a gotcha tasteless.
I’ll answer the other questions when I can (off to work).
The point is that you seemed to scoff at Toles because other cartoonists would have done it better, in you opinion. I don’t think that’s a valid criticism.
My criticism of the cartoon would only be that I think it exaggerates the condition of the Army. I don’t think it’s quite the “basket case” that is shown although even some of it’s leaders have said that it’s badly strained .
However there is the fact that political cartoons tend to exaggerate in order to make the point clear.
Two ways. He looks like an expressionless Weeble (this is what I was referring to). He is essentially a prop.
I think I said this outright, though I indicated it’s a minor point.
His style per se is not a major point. His lack of skill, though, doesn’t help the reaction to his work.
Here’s where we essentially disagree, I guess. Rummy’s comment, and the topic he was addressing, was regarding the size of the force in Iraq. Period. It wasn’t about our callous treatment of wounded soldiers. And I think it’s a stretch to say that Toles’s point was the one you infer when a simple reading of it (including his little “sub-cartoon”) show (to me, at least) that the soldier is simply a metaphor for a depleted army (not an effect of a depleted army). I’ll concede, though, that if your read is correct, the image is no longer gratuitous or a simple prop. It would then be central to Toles’s point.
You may disagree with my interpretation of the cartoon, but do you see how (if they see it this way too) that there’s a specific use of this image, regardless of the politics behind it, that is offensive?
He’s hardly expressionless, he’s got a very distrusting, angry look on his face. It’s drawn in a very minimalist way, which I think it to Toles’ credit. He just needed the narrowed eyes and sideways glance to convey it, and left out any non-relevant details. Again, this is how Toles draws all his humans, who aren’t meant to be recognizable charictures. It’s not remotely dehumanizing. To the contrary, his reaction is essentially a prompt for the audience. He’s reacting the way Toles intends his readers to react, with a measure of distrust and disgust at what Rumsfeld is saying. If Toles just wanted to shock, he could have had the soldier in a body bag, or worse yet, still lying on the roadside after being gutted by a home-made land mine. Instead, it’s a wounded vet precisely because Toles wants a human reaction in-panel to Rumsfeld’s comments.
Okay, it’s one thing to not care for his style, but by using it as a basis for your claimed offence, you’re assigning a moral value to his (perceived) lack of skill.
No, it wasn’t. “Battle hardened” doesn’t refer to the size of an army, it refers to that army’s experience and readiness. He was trying to rebut questions about the size of our forces by claiming that the lengthy combat tours made them more capable, making up for their lack of numbers. Toles is deflating that claim by showing exactly what those lengthy combat tours result in: not tougher soldiers, but wounded (and dead) soldiers.
It was about his callous treatment of the army in general. The use of a wounded soldier highlights how monstrous Rumsfeld’s callousness is, by contrasting his pollyanna nonsense with someone most damaged by his attitude. The sub-cartoon also mentions the debate over torture; that doesn’t mean that the main cartoon is about Abu Ghraib. Metaphors can work on more than one level, including the literal.
Irrelevant. The comic is political speech. By commenting on it at all, the JCoS are themselves engaging in political commentary, which is wildly inappropriate to people in their position. If they were so concerned about the portrayal of wounded vets, they should have released a general statement on the subject without reference to any one particular source.
At this point I wish I had never mentioned his style at all. What I considered a minor aside has somehow become important. And your conclusion doesn’t follow. If his lack of skill is just, well, a lack of skill, it inadvertently exacerbates the moral decision he made in depicting the soldier, but the skill level has no moral weight itself. How could it? Again, I was simply commenting on his skill as a communicator when I commented on his style. That is not the same as commenting directly on his message.
Decreased pension reserves can also be a result of lower recruitment. The fact that one thing follows the other logically doesn’t mean it was relevant to the particular point under discussion.
This is silly. One can comment on the inappropriateness of the use of a particular image completely divorced from the political message. It seems to me the JCoS went to great lengths to do just that. Something doesn’t become exempt from comment simply because “it’s political.”