Hate The War, Love The Warrior
Forgive me for posting what should go in the comments section as a post. My reply to this (as well as some points I’ve seen raised elsewhere) got a little long :
While I’ve certainly had issues with a lot of Rall’s cartoons and esp. with his essays, and while I haven’t seen any evidence that Tillman “wanted to kill Arabs”, I HAVE seen plenty of evidence that Tillman joined the Rangers because of 9/11, and I find it hard to argue with the remainder of Rall’s analysis
Let’s think back to when Tillman enlisted. Shortly after 9/11, Bush’s approval ratings were 90%. While I was in the remaining 10% who was scared that we were on a runaway train with a retard at the switch, I can understand why people gravitated toward their leader in a time of crisis. This was the environment in which Tillman and his non-famous peers enlisted.
And why did they enlist? To fight al Qaeda and the Taliban. Regardless of how awful the this was carried out or the ulterior motives of those in charge, going after the people who were responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is a noble goal. While I would have preferred a less “there will be some collateral damage” approach, the ostensible goal was just.
Should Tillman have known better? Well, maybe. I don’t know if I really feel comfortable blaming somebody for not being fully informed. Especially when the media pretty much inoring anything even slightly critical of the President. After all, we can’t expect everyone to have read The Nation and Salon.
If Tillman later realized how shitty the planning and execution of Bush’s wars was, should he have refused to participate? As nice as it would be to say “yes”, there’s no room in the military for low-level guys to be questioning their orders in the middle of a fight. Ever.
So, was Tillman a rube? Possibly, but that doesn’t change the fact that he (along with every other dead and injured soldier) deserves to be treated like a hero for the willingness to risk his life to defend our country. I call it “hate the war, love the warrior”.
But that’s not the point of Rall’s cartoon. In Rall’s world, it’s okay to denigrate the sacrifice of someone who’s not as hip to Bush’s motives as he is. I wonder if Rall watched Nightline’s “The Fallen” with the same wiseass attitude that he displayed in his cartoon. By Rall’s reasoning, it seems that all our dead soldiers are “idiots” who don’t deserve the respect they earned.
10 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think his phraseology was ridiculous, though to be honest, while I understand the outrage, I’m not really that upset about this. I wish he hadn’t phrased it so it looked like an attack on Tillman. (Though I wonder if he could even help that – his hatred of sports is to the point where I doubt he’s even capable of seeing an athlete as a decent guy).
Anyway, with respect to the Soldiers who have died, and to the wasted sacrifices they’ve made, let’s honor them as tragic heroes. And I’m with you on the question of Afganistan – they wewre harboring our enemies and we had the right.
But let’s not distract from the point that Tillman, like ALL dead soldiers, are being used to justify this hyorrible evil war, by these evil, lying, hypocritical, warmongering bastards who hate us and this country.
Comment by the eligible Ross Lincoln — May 5, 2004 @ 11:49 am
True, but his family is doing a ball-busting job of fighting the media’s forced mythology. This quote, from Tillman’s brother, is my favorite:
“And Pat was not religious, so he’s not with God, he’s just (expletive) dead.”
Comment by Amy — May 5, 2004 @ 12:08 pm
this is no defense of rall or his “idiot” comment, but i heard that at the same eulogy that tillmans brother went off, tillman was praised as a spiritual man who read the bible and the koran and the book of mormon.
now, ANYWONE who willingly reads the book of mormon just aint all that bright.
Comment by josh — May 5, 2004 @ 2:08 pm
It didn’t just “look like” an attack on Tillman, it was an attack on Tillman. And an unfair one at that. His “do I get to kill Arabs?” line was so inappropriate I wouldn’t blame any paper for permanently pulling his strip.
I’m also personally offended by the last panel of the strip that subtly implies that anyone who considers Tillman to be a hero is somehow blind to the wrongs of the Bush Administration. (My view on this is best summed up by the title of this post.) It’s possible to decry the war and mourn the dead at the same time, but I guess that requires a level of complexity that Rall is incapable of.
This kind of strip is standard fare for Ted Rall though. While I have a lot in common with Rall politically, his motivation often seems to be to piss people off and get attention. I got over trying to use shock value as a persuasive tactic when I was fifteen, but apparently Rall (and his conservative doppelganger, Ann Coulter) never really grew up.
Comment by greg — May 5, 2004 @ 4:03 pm
“there’s no room in the military for low-level guys to be questioning their orders in the middle of a fight. Ever.”
Jeez. Ever? He wasn’t in the middle of a fight for the whole six months… And I’m not sure I agree with this reasoning anyway. But “ever” is definitly overkill.
Comment by Joe — May 5, 2004 @ 6:17 pm
In a volunteer army, if you hate the war, you shouldn’t be a warrior. I fail to see why you should support the warriors, under these circumstances.
Incidentally, in any army, you’re only supposed to obey lawful orders. Obeying unlawful orders is a war crime. So is compelling troops to obey unlawful orders.
Don’t you think it’s about time people stopped piling on Ted Rall for saying things they don’t want to hear, and suggesting that he should be silenced or censored? Or do all freedoms have to be abandoned in the name of electing Mr. Kerry?
Comment by MFB — May 6, 2004 @ 3:20 am
Greg: I agree almost totally with you (despite that it was my comment that made you post a rebuttal)… I think that including cheap shock value like “do I get to kill Arabs” is what keep Rall from being a controversial but necessary voice, and make him come off as an asshole.
That said, I also agree with Ross and Josh about the fact that Bush and his ilk are perfectly happy for us to focus on individual tragedies at the expense of focusing on his craptacular administration; whether Tillman was a racist or not (I don’t know), whether it’s predictable for people to side with their leader or not (it is), Bush is “an evildoer” and the fact remains that none of these people would’ve died if he hadn’t been so upset that Saddam tried to kill his Pappy.
Also, the excuse that “some people don’t read the Nation” doesn’t fly with me; if someone can’t read between the lines, even on Fox fucking news, they should have their vote taken away… it is not up to those of us who know what’s going on to live at the mercy of those who would rather watch Survivor.
Comment by jwer — May 6, 2004 @ 9:21 am
this cartoon is way over the top. it says things that are uncalled for. that being said, i still think some of ted cartoos are pretty funny. heres no where near tom tomorrow, but still.
here’s a question: why do we on the left criticise rall for his “shock” but look past michael moore’s innacuarcy? or his shock? what about stern? everyone on the left loves him now but his attitude towards women and the whole “homeless hollywood squares” thing give me pause.
everyone on “our side” has thier faults and shortcommings (except amy goodman-don’t no one talk trash on my woman!). none of these people, including rall, are nearly as arrogant, mean, and shocking as the people in the whitehouse.
Comment by josh — May 6, 2004 @ 9:42 am
Okay, I’m responding to a few different comments here :
I wouldn’t necessarily use the word “support”, but I think the root cause our soldiers are dying for is just, even if the wars themselves and specifics therein are not.
I agree. I exagerrated a bit on this point, but I did want to stress that if Tillman (or any other soldiers) disagree with this war, it’s not like they can just go AWOL.
Huh?? Who’s saying Rall should be censored? What does this have to do with John Kerry?
Sorry, but that’s just wrong. Saying someone should have their vote taken away for being uninformed is as elitist as the conservatives who said that anyone who had trouble using a butterfly ballot in 2000 is “too dumb to vote”. If laziness is the reason for America being horribly misinformed, does this mean we can stop blaming media consolidation, FCC strong-arming, etc.?
Because Michael Moore doesn’t intentionally say hurtful things just to see what kind of response they’ll get.
Well, we may share a common enemy with Stern, but in the end he’s still a sleazy opportunist.
Comment by greg — May 6, 2004 @ 11:10 am
Yes, well, obviously I was engaging in some hyperbole; I don’t think anyone’s vote should be taken away for any reason (with the possible exception of ‘while in prison’ if there were some way to prove that they were actually SUPPOSED to be there)…
My point is that it’s not acceptable to excuse people who can’t be bothered to think critically, and just accept the mess we get into because they somehow think they should still exercise their vote. I am more angry, actually, at people who DO know what’s what, and DON’T vote, because they think it’s a drop in the bucket or whatever rationalization they use to get out of a 20-minute duty every few years.
I wasn’t actually disagreeing with your analysis of why he might not have known better, and for all I know, he did know better but just wanted to show his support; I put my hand over my heart and get annoyed at people that talk during the Anthem too, but there is a line, and being patriotic without knowing anything about the ideals of this country or about historic and contemporary abuses of those ideals is NOT worthy of excuse or respect.
Comment by jwer — May 7, 2004 @ 4:55 am