The tone of these cartoons is one of criticism against General McChrystal

1. Introduction:

In this essay, I will be analyzing two different cartoons that were made in relation to the controversy surrounding General McChrystal's comments. The first cartoon is by Mike Luckovich and was published on June 23rd, 2010 in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The second cartoon is by Gary Varvel and was published on June 25th, 2010 in the Indianapolis Star. The tone of both of these cartoons is one of criticism against General McChrystal. In the first cartoon, the 'black-eye' shows a damaged reputation and hence intense criticisms of McChrystal's comments by Obama's administration. In the second cartoon, Karl Eikenberry is seen as a puppet being controlled by President Obama and Richard C. Holbrooke while McChrystal is shown as a backstabber in the shadows. These cartoons imply that Obama's administration was right to be critical of McChrystal and that his insubordination was not justified.

2. Analysis of the first cartoon:

The first cartoon by Mike Luckovich shows General McChrystal with a black eye. This black eye is symbolic of the damage that has been done to his reputation as a result of his comments. The caricature of McChrystal in this cartoon is very simplistic and does not show much detail. This lack of detail could be interpreted as a sign of disrespect towards the General. The placement of the black eye also serves to make him look foolish and incompetent. All of these elements work together to create a tone of criticism against McChrystal.
The background of the cartoon is very simple as well. There are just three words written in large letters: "Obama Spanked Him". This phrase reinforces the idea that Obama was justified in being Critical of McChrystal’s comments. It also implies that McChrystal deserved the criticism he received because he was acting foolishly. The simplicity of the background further adds to the tone of criticism in the cartoon.
Overall, this cartoon is very effective in conveying its message and creating a tone of criticism against McChrystal.

3. Analysis of the second cartoon:

The second cartoon by Gary Varvel shows Karl Eikenberry as a puppet being controlled by President Obama and Richard C. Holbrooke while Stanley McChrystal is shown as a backstabber in the shadows. This image implies that Obama's administration was right to be critical of McChrystal and that his insubordination was not justified. The placement of Eikenberry in the foreground with Obama and Holbrooke in the background serves to emphasize their control over him. And the fact that McChrystal is shown as a backstabber lurking in the shadows further suggests that his actions were not supportable. All of these elements work together to create a tone of criticism against Stanley McChrystal.

4. implications of the cartoons:

The implications of these cartoons are that Obama's administration was right to be critical of McChrystal and that his insubordination was not justified. These cartoons suggest that McChrystal's comments were foolish and deserve the intense criticisms they received. The tone of criticism in these cartoons is significant because it shows that even cartoonists who are usually quite supportive of the military are willing to criticize them when they believe they deserve it. This level of criticism can have serious implications for the morale of the troops and the public's perception of the military.

5. conclusion:

In conclusion, these two cartoons are effective in conveying their message and creating a tone of criticism against Stanley McChrystal. They suggest that Obama's administration was right to be critical of him and that his comments were foolish. The implications of these cartoons are significant because they show that even cartoonists who are usually quite supportive of the military are willing to criticize them when they believe they deserve it.
I hope you found this essay to be insightful. Thank you for your time.

FAQ

General McChrystal is a former United States Army general who served as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from 2009 to 2010.

The cartoons about him specifically depict him as a bumbling idiot who is in over his head and does not know what he is doing.

The public feels divided about these cartoons; some people find them funny, while others find them offensive and in bad taste.

It is difficult to say if they accurately depict his character or military career, as it is hard to judge someone's character or career based on a few cartoons. However, the general consensus seems to be that the cartoons are exaggerated and do not provide an accurate portrayal of General McChrystal.

Some people might interpret the cartoons as commentary on America's involvement in Afghanistan under his command, but it is difficult to say for sure if that was the intention of the cartoonists.

Some people might find them funny because they are able to laugh at the situation depicted in the cartoon, while others might find them funny because they can relate to the characters portrayed in the cartoon (e.g., feeling like you are in over your head).

Different people would likely have different interpretations of the cartoons based on their own political leanings or personal experiences with the military; for example, someone who supports America's involvement in Afghanistan might see them as being critical of General McChrystal, while someone who opposes America's involvement in Afghanistan might see them as being critical of America's policy