ubertuber

Nothing like that is said or implied in the Joint Chiefs' letter. That letter is simply them sticking up for their men who are serving and bearing the brunt of the cost of this war. The Chiefs are simply saying that using those who are paying such a high price to attack the system they are serving is callous. To state that the Joint Chiefs' letter was threatening, followed be these assumptions, is really just histrionics. It's not supported by the text.

This is where I have a problem with the cartoon - your interpretation is NOT what the cartoon is about. The soldier in the cartoon does not represent all servicemen. He represents the health of the US Army as a whole. Look at the chart on the foot of the bed. The cartoonist is making the point that Rumsfeld publicly refuses to acknowledge the bruised and battered condition of the Army, which is more than physical injuries, and has little to do with individual benefits. Toles (the artist) is pointing out that an assessment of the state of the armed forces that does not take recruiting, supply, funding and logistical challenges into account is naive.

His points are good ones, but made in a tasteless (and obviously ineffective way). He chose to use the image of a maimed soldier to represent the Army as a whole (again, notice the chart on the foot of the bed). However, this is not done in a clear enough manner. Nearly every person in this thread has identified the depicted soldier as representing all soldiers and that the metaphor is over benefits and treatments stemming from injuries. However, the shocking image of a completely maimed individual is the focus of the image, as it is guaranteed to produce sympathy, outrage, and/or revulsion. THIS is why I feel the cartoon is tasteless and poorly done. It is also why I feel that the Joint Chiefs' measured and polite letter is a classy response, as they object to their injured men being used for shock value.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam