Firestorm

This cartoon is generating a lot more controversy than it deserves.

Editor and Publisher has the story:

A Tom Toles editorial cartoon published in The Washington Post on Monday and on its Web site has drawn a very rare and very strong protest letter to the editors from all six members of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, E&P learned Wednesday.

The letter was published in the Post on Thursday, along with a separate column by Howard Kurtz in which Toles, and Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, responded. Hiatt said, "While I certainly can understand the strong feelings, I took it to be a cartoon about the state of the Army and not one intended to demean wounded soldiers." He added that he doesn't "censor Tom."

Kurtz also quoted Dave Autry, deputy communications director for Disabled American Veterans, saying he was "certainly not" offended by the cartoon.

Here's a link to the letter in question.

What's my take? The cartoon is certainly unpleasant, but I don't know that I'd call it "beyond tasteless." The situation is unpleasant, so I don't see how an editorial cartoon commenting on it could be otherwise. I see more than a little deflection in the Joint Chiefs' letter -- the cartoon is not criticizing the troops, it is quite obviously criticizing Rumsfeld and the military establishment, who, after all, have not shown up well lately. To write a letter demanding an apology for something that people didn't do -- well, maybe I've gotten a little jaded, but that has become too much of a pattern for this administration. Nor would it be the first time that the military brass has ducked an issue -- in fact, that happens way too much. ("A few bad apples"?) I think Aravosis calling it "censorhip" is a little ridiculous, but not that far out of his usual mode. It is, however, interesting to note that a letter signed by the entire Joint Chiefs, on official letterhead, has now somehow become an expression of "personal opinion."

There is an interesting discussion at Black Five on this one, unfortunately generating more heat than light. (I've been called a troll because I noted the issues pointed out above; fortunately, most of the commenters are more reasonable.) I've found it a little more difficult than usual to avoid biting people in the Comments, but so far, I think I've managed.

The conflict seems to be, in the Black Five comments at least, between an almost automatic deference to authority (which has never been one of my problems) and a willingness to look behind the obvious, or at least to avoid having one's perceptions molded by that authority. It leads to some interesting speculations about the differences between those who have been subject to military discipline and those who have not, which I'm not going to pursue. It is interesting to note that Dave Autry of Disabled American Veterans was castigated in those comments for not finding the cartoon offensive. I get a faint whiff of "holier than thou" here, when I would think that a more appropriate reaction might be the willingness to at least consider the possibility that more than one point of view is legitimately possible.

One wonders. One really does.

I am also reminded of a thread at Epinions Addicts about the latest Christianist wingnut campaign against AOL. My summation of that was "anything is offensive if you want it enough."

I think this, as is so often the case, is being blown way out of proportion, and the Joint Chiefs are the ones doing it. It's not like there hasn't been criticism of the Pentagon's war preparedness before this, or that people have been ignoring the whole "armor, lack of" issue. (It is, however, interesting to note that the debate in that area has now morphed to "more is not necessarily better," with the Pentagon trotting out all the objections to more complete armor, when the primary issue has been "not enough armor to go around." I guess we're to believe that the lack of body armor leaves you with enough mobility to dodge the bullets.) However, cartoons can be a particularly potent medium, and I would guess that this one had a little bit too much sting, as well as a convenient handle.

Of course, the truly cynical would note that the Joint Chiefs' letter concerns itself almost entirely with the putative "disrespect" shown to wounded personnel, while trying desperately to ignore the real thrust of the cartoon, which is the general lack of competence in our conduct of the ground war in terms of supply and basic equipment. (And we won't go into the awarding of contracts or billing irregularities by well-connected contractors. No. We won't mention it.) I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that the military has become politicized, in spite of the president's use of soldiers as "audience" for several of his speeches during the last campaign (complete with custom-made T-shirts, which is another issue we won't get into, considering the side-show at SOTU), but I would go so far as to say that the military brass is not above playing their own combination of "CYA and point at someone else."

I hadn't really intended to comment on this issue, but it's become hard to ignore.

OK -- I've had my say.