Combat Zone: True Tales of GI's in Iraq, a Groundbreaking Work

[Michael]

Combat Zone: True Tales of GI’s in Iraq is groundbreaking in the comic book industry today.

After September 11th we were confronted with a plethora of polemics - comic books that sent a cynical message of appeasement, featuring a host of trite images hostile to the United States - including senior military officers portrayed as stupid belligerent bullies, government officials as evil masterminds, comic book iconic heroes spouting pacifist anti-war platitudes, and storylines slandering America's past and present. Some, published by major publishers, even went so far as to equate America's actions with those of Nazi Germany. In striking contrast to comic book tradition, we saw virtually no comic books supportive of the war effort or that portrayed our senior military in a positive light.

Now, with Karl Zinsmeister's work, we see a comic that realistically portrays senior military officers and the soldiers serving on the ground. Zinsmeister explores their motivations for wanting to confront an evil adversary, their dedication, their dreams, their courage - and their willingness to endanger their own lives to minimize civilian casualties. In short, it presents these brave men and women as the true heroes they are.

This book is an all-around great package. First, and most importantly, it gives stateside readers a bird's-eye view of what our fighting men and women have done in Iraq (specifically the 82nd Airborne, a group of consummate professional soldiers who uphold a many-decades-long Airborne tradition of doing their country proud). Karl Zinsmeister translates his first-hand experiences as an embedded journalist into engrossing comic book war stories, with the able assistance of artist Dan Jurgens, who deftly controls the pacing and atmosphere of the stories through his fine illustrations.

We all have opinions about Iraq, but our thoughts aren't worth spit if our opinion isn't educated. This comic, as one part of Mr. Zinsmeister's writing efforts, are providing some of that knowledge to fact-starved American civilians.

This project also fills another void by adding much-needed diversity to mainstream comics. War comics used to have a solid and continual presence on the newstands, but by the time comics shops took over, this genre had entirely dried up. From a technical standpoint, Combat Zone is similar to the classic Sgt. Rock comics of the seventies and eighties, more so than the equivalent Marvel Sgt. Fury comics that always seemed more fantastical. There is a gritty realism in Combat Zone, but not the chaotic atmosphere of a "Saving Private Ryan". These stories are more a portrait of military professionalism.

If you know someone in the military, you'd be hard-pressed to read Combat Zone (or the books these stories are taken from: BOOTS ON THE GROUND and DAWN OVER BAGHDAD) without feeling proud of them.

Marvel deserves credit for bucking the trend in the industry, and in many of its past comics, by publishing Combat Zone: True Tales of GI's in Iraq.

Note: Some of the above comments were taken from a review of Combat Zone that seemed worth sharing, others are my own. Please share your reactions. And if you have not read this book – you should. It really is unique when compared to the vast body of material published in comic books today.

Additional Questions Regarding Delays in Publishing Schedule and Unusual Form of Publication:

Marvel actually approached Karl Zinsmeister to write this storyline, based on his experiences as an embedded journalist in Iraq. Late last year in comic book forums I heard the following about the public reaction to this project: When word of this got out there was significant lobbying of Marvel on the part of some comic book fans to cancel publication of this book, as well as by some retailers who threatened not to stock it. Their objections were politically motivated – they could not tolerate any comic book that might be viewed as supportive of the war effort. It was originally scheduled to be a mini-series of conventional monthly comic books. Many of us thought it was cancelled altogether. Then in August it appeared, resurrected as a trade paperback. I can’t recall the last time Marvel published a trade paperback with material that did not originally appear in comic book form – this is very unusual. Are any of you aware of the truth of these rumors regarding efforts of some to preempt its publication? Are you aware of whether these efforts (if they did take place) prompted the cancellation of the regular comic book publication schedule for the book? Any knowledge as to why Marvel chose to go ahead and print the trade paperback? Do you believe this represents a true willingness by Marvel to embrace diverse opinions, or simply a token effort calculated to defuse criticism that the publisher is one-sided? I would prefer the less cynical explanation. The fact that Marvel did approach Zinsmeister is impressive. The publication of this book, even in trade paperback form, is a great thing to see. :)

[Jake V]

It actually came out?

Ehh. The only comic book soldier that I care about is Captain America.

[Red State Cap]

Thanks for the heads-up, Michael. I'll pop over to the comic shop and pick one of those up.

RSC

[StoneGold]

It actually came out?

Ehh. The only comic book soldier that I care about is Captain America.
Why do you hate freedom?

[Bicycle-Repairman]

Karl Zinsmeister is the Editor-in-Chief of The American Enterprise, a conservative magazine, and a strong supporter of the Iraq War. He is listed among the American Enterprise Institute's scholars and fellows, along with Lynne Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and Richard Perle. Zinsmeister posted an article on The American Institute Online on June 20, 2005 titled "The War is Over, and We Won". Since June 20, 200 Coalition soldiers and over 3,000 Iraqis have been killed.

[RabidWolfe]

Karl Zinsmeister is the Editor-in-Chief of The American Enterprise, a conservative magazine, and a strong supporter of the Iraq War. He is listed among the American Enterprise Institute's scholars and fellows, along with Lynne Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and Richard Perle. Zinsmeister posted an article on The American Institute Online on June 20, 2005 titled "The War is Over, and We Won". Since June 20, 200 Coalition soldiers and over 3,000 Iraqis have been killed.

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with whether the comic is any good.

It's actually fairly good. KZ has obviously never written a comic before, as there are pacing issues, but Dan Jurgen's art is excellent and well done.

It is fairly positive in its treatment of the US troops, so if you hate, hate, hate the Iraq war, you might have too much emotional baggage to enjoy it.

But if you treat it like the old WWII comics, it comes across as a decent read.

[Bicycle-Repairman]

It's important that readers know that Zinsmeister is not an impartial source. He is a partisan editorialist who is staunchly pro-Iraq War and dismisses any criticism of it.

There is nothing wrong with a a comic book, or any work of art, taking one side of an issue. Zinsmeister has the right to voice his opinions on the subject, even as he has mocked those who disagree with him. Marvel has the right to publish Combat Zone, but retailers also have the right to decline to stock it. Their reasons for doing so might be more economics than politics. War comics simply don't sell very well in the current marketplace, and with public opinion turning against the Bush administration's handling of Iraq a pro-war comic is an even tougher sell.

[RabidWolfe]

It's important that readers know that Zinsmeister is not an impartial source. He is a partisan editorialist who is staunchly pro-Iraq War and dismisses any criticism of it.


Uhm -

how many of us expect any of our comic book writers to be impartial sources of anything?

[Bicycle-Repairman]

Uhm -

how many of us expect any of our comic book writers to be impartial sources of anything?

The difference is that Marvel did not approach Zinsmeister because of his experience as a comic book writer. They hired him because of his experience as an embedded journalist in Iraq. When a book is billed as "True Tales of GIs in Iraq", it is important to know if the man telling the tale is biased.

[Be Stiff]

Since June 20, 200 Coalition soldiers and over 3,000 Iraqis have been killed.

Killing the citizens of a foreign nation is something to be proud of? Ugh.

[cactusmaac]

It's important that readers know that Zinsmeister is not an impartial source. He is a partisan editorialist who is staunchly pro-Iraq War and dismisses any criticism of it.

There is nothing wrong with a a comic book, or any work of art, taking one side of an issue. Zinsmeister has the right to voice his opinions on the subject, even as he has mocked those who disagree with him. Marvel has the right to publish Combat Zone, but retailers also have the right to decline to stock it. Their reasons for doing so might be more economics than politics. War comics simply don't sell very well in the current marketplace, and with public opinion turning against the Bush administration's handling of Iraq a pro-war comic is an even tougher sell.

I'm curious.

Are you as concerned about the impartiality and economic viability of comics taking a negative view of the WoT and Iraq?

[Jake V]

Killing the citizens of a foreign nation is something to be proud of? Ugh.
To make an omlette, you've gotta break some eggs, COMMIE! Stop hating freedom!!

[RabidWolfe]

The difference is that Marvel did not approach Zinsmeister because of his experience as a comic book writer. They hired him because of his experience as an embedded journalist in Iraq. When a book is billed as "True Tales of GIs in Iraq", it is important to know if the man telling the tale is biased.


You keep acting as though KZ is pretending to be fair and balanced. He isn't - his sympathies clearly lie with the troops.

I tell you what. If you start complaining about the bias of the writers of the old "True tales" comics, movies and radio shows that dealt with WWII, the old West and Vietnam, then I might think you have a point.

[Economist]

"The War is Over, and We Won". Since June 20, 200 Coalition soldiers and over 3,000 Iraqis have been killed.

And of course that Iraq looks like is going to have a constitution. Iraq has had an election. The terrorists are suffering massive causalties. Despite some terrible decisions by Bush, this will go in the win column. Which will shock alot of people who have no idea how well things have gone (relatively speaking, after all it is a war - many people died on D-Day yet it was not a failure).


And here is the the mentioned article
"The War is Over, and We Won".
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp


And for the record, I thought that Combat Zone was ok, but nothing special.

[Bicycle-Repairman]

You keep acting as though KZ is pretending to be fair and balanced. He isn't - his sympathies clearly lie with the troops.

I tell you what. If you start complaining about the bias of the writers of the old "True tales" comics, movies and radio shows that dealt with WWII, the old West and Vietnam, then I might think you have a point.

I already said that it is okay for comics and other works of art to take sides. However, it is important that we the audience are aware of the creator's biases so that we can judge for ourselves. I pointed out that Zinsmeister has a very biased and rosy view of the Iraq War, which many comics readers might not know. If Marvel had hired the Editor-in-Chief of a left-wing, anti-war magazine to write a comic book about Iraq but only referred to him as a "longtime embedded journalist" in their product solicitations, I'm sure many from the opposite side of the political spectrum would point out the writer's partisan affiliations, and rightly so.

I have a BA in History and have spent plenty of time complaining about the biases of the writers of historical narratives, regardless of their political leanings. Zinsmeister downplays reports of abuse by American forces in his articles and questions the patriotism of those bothered by allegations of mistreatment. Here's what Zinsmeister wrote in an issue of The American Enterprise marking the four year anniversary of the September 11 attack:

"Would you believe that the number of formal U.S. investigations of how terror detainees are being treated recently reached 189? What mad self-doubt and softness! Of course we need to weed out cruel or out-of-control guards, but the clear picture of the many commissions and blue-ribbon investigations is that our detainment system is pretty tight and self-regulating, that gentleness to the point of political correctness is the norm, and that rogue actions are nearly always found out and punished, usually quite severely."

This is contradicted by the following report from today's issue of The Los Angeles Times:

"An Army captain and two sergeants from the 82nd Airborne Division who were responsible for supervising prisoners in Iraq have come forward with allegations that members of the unit routinely beat, tortured and abused detainees in 2003 and early 2004.

The Pentagon announced Friday that it opened a criminal investigation of the accusations this week, after learning of the charges recently from the Senate Armed Services Committee and Human Rights Watch.

Capt. Ian Fishback, a West Point graduate, contacted the Senate panel with the charges within the last 10 days, saying he was frustrated that his superior officers had failed to respond, said committee aides."

The point I'm trying to make is that you must consult several sources, consider a source's biases, and compare conflicting accounts when attempting to understand historical events.

[cactusmaac]

So how is Zinmeister supposed to have taken into account a story which was published after he wrote his article?

[RabidWolfe]

So how is Zinmeister supposed to have taken into account a story which was published after he wrote his article?


It ain't worth it. Bicycle repairman has too much emotional baggage regarding the Iraq war. He can't seperate his disapproval of it from the comic.

I can. I'm not a supporter of the war, but I can still think the comic was decent, but not great. Zinmeister has a side, and I can take that into account. My disapproval of the war does not require me to believe nearly all our soldiers are evil, or that there cannot be any nobility in the war.

[Michael]

My disapproval of the war does not require me to believe nearly all our soldiers are evil, or that there cannot be any nobility in the war.

I could not agree with you more. The major "crime" of Combat Zone is that it dares portray both our soldiers on the ground and their senior commanding officers as decent human beings doing a difficult job. No matter that this truth comports with reality -- the comic book faced a wellspring of criticism from the Left even before it was published – notwithstanding the fact that few if any of these critics had previewed the actual content of the comic book series.

Remember, it was written to be a regular comic book series. Until Marvel’s publishing division’s executives lost their nerve and succumbed to pressure from these “progressive” elements – many of whom are their peers. Good heavens, had they published a normal comic book run, they might have had to face raised eyebrows and nasty insults at their next cocktail party (or RAVE party, as the case may be). Probably if the publishing division had had its own way, Combat Zone would have been cancelled altogether, instead of just delayed 8 months and buried as a trade paperback – which we all know will be relegated the dark recesses of most comic book shops along with myriad reprints and compilations.

Ironic, isn’t it? When people who support the War on Terrorism objected to some of the content published by Marvel post-9/11, they were condemned as totalitarian McCarthyite censors. Yet when people on the Left advocated the termination of the Combat Zone project with threats of boycott – before even reading the content of the book – and succeeded in stopping publication of the comic book as a series --well, that’s a jolly good victory for the visionaries of human progress against the dark forces of reaction.

Go figure. Yes, Combat Zone could have been GROUNDBREAKING in the comic book industry today – had it not been BURIED in a trade paperback with ZERO promotion over the past 8 months by the wimps at Marvel’s publishing division.

All that said, the senior executives at Marvel Enterprises deserve some small credit for seeing that it was published at all. Though query whether this too was just a cynical ploy, a token to fend off future Conservative critics who may assert that Marvel is biased in promoting only one geopolitical agenda.

If you think about it, the way Marvel handled this, canceling the normal run and then delaying and burying the book in a TBP and then failing to promote it, is pretty pathetic – when the only crime committed by Zinsmeister was to portray our soldiers in a positive light.

(Note: My comment on the reaction of some to the cancellation of the normal run is not directed toward anyone who has posted on this site -- but we all know there were some who did applaud this "success" in stopping normal publication)

[StoneGold]

Go figure. Yes, Combat Zone could have been GROUNDBREAKING in the comic book industry today – had it not been BURIED in a trade paperback with ZERO promotion over the past 8 months by the wimps at Marvel’s publishing division.

Groundbreaking might be pushing it a little bit.

http://www.genecolan.com/covers/pre1960s/WarComics17.jpg
http://www.capitolcollectibles.com/War_Comics_9_Route_127.jpg
http://www.comicskins.com/csnnews/comfychair/04_29_2003/TheNam.jpg
http://www.pedigreecomics.com/g_thumb/SF-70-94.jpg

[Michael]

Groundbreaking might be pushing it a little bit.


Note I said groundbreaking TODAY. The climate in the industry, the geopolitical bias, has shifted so far to the Left that even a moderate positive portrayal of our troops is groundbreaking TODAY. And that, my friend, is a very sad commentary on the state of the industry.

[StoneGold]

Note I said groundbreaking TODAY. The climate in the industry, the geopolitical bias, has shifted so far to the Left that even a moderate positive portrayal of our troops is groundbreaking TODAY. And that, my friend, is a very sad commentary on the state of the industry.
Again, the only medium that's really true in is comics, but that's more because there really aren't any war books period coming from any of the major publishers. And given that the only thing that seems to sell consistantly in the current market at all is superhero stuff, I really doubt a modern day war book would have been all that groundbreaking.

[Bicycle-Repairman]

It ain't worth it. Bicycle repairman has too much emotional baggage regarding the Iraq war. He can't seperate his disapproval of it from the comic.

I can. I'm not a supporter of the war, but I can still think the comic was decent, but not great. Zinmeister has a side, and I can take that into account. My disapproval of the war does not require me to believe nearly all our soldiers are evil, or that there cannot be any nobility in the war.

I have to object to what you have said. You can't read my mind and you're not my psychiatrist, so how can you say I have "too much emotional baggage regarding the Iraq war"? All I have sought out to do was point out the very thing you have acknowledged, that Zinsmeister has a side and to take that into account. I never wrote that most U.S. soldiers are evil and ignoble. It hurts me for you to insinuate that because I know someone whose husband served in Iraq. I brought up the abuse allegations involving the 82nd Airborne because Zinsmeister was embedded with that unit in 2003 and his view of the military's policies on the treatment of prisoners is contradicted by the three soldiers' recent claims. My point was to show how different sources can provide conflicting views of the same issue.

[Michael]

My point was to show how different sources can provide conflicting views of the same issue.

Just curious. Have you even read Combat Zone: True Tales of GI's in Iraq? :confused:

[cactusmaac]

I have to object to what you have said. You can't read my mind and you're not my psychiatrist, so how can you say I have "too much emotional baggage regarding the Iraq war"? All I have sought out to do was point out the very thing you have acknowledged, that Zinsmeister has a side and to take that into account.

And?

Isn't that something you're supposed to take into account with anything you read?

[RabidWolfe]

I have to object to what you have said. You can't read my mind and you're not my psychiatrist, so how can you say I have "too much emotional baggage regarding the Iraq war"?

Your right - I can't read your mind. All I have to go on is what you have said. All I can analyze what you have written.

And what you have written has been attempts to prove CZ:TT is a bad comic (or not worthwhile, or at least too biased to be a good comic) because a.) the author is a neo-con, and we can't trust them there neo-cons; b.) Hey! Look! Our troops committed a few atrocities! The author of the comic is either a liar, or is covering for the military! and, c.) Troops are still dying in Iraq, so therefore KZ is a liar, or at least too biased to be a good writer.

That's the subtext to nearly all your comments. That indicates your disapproval of the comic is too tied up with your disapproval of the Iraq war - you are unable to seperate the two. If that's not emotional baggage, I'm not sure what is.

for other comments on this thread:

I'm not sure if this would have been groundbreaking, but as a fan of The 'Nam and Sgt. Rock comics, I would have liked there to be a return to war comics. In that since, it may have "broken old ground."

[Bicycle-Repairman]

Your right - I can't read your mind. All I have to go on is what you have said. All I can analyze what you have written.

And what you have written has been attempts to prove CZ:TT is a bad comic (or not worthwhile, or at least too biased to be a good comic) because a.) the author is a neo-con, and we can't trust them there neo-cons; b.) Hey! Look! Our troops committed a few atrocities! The author of the comic is either a liar, or is covering for the military! and, c.) Troops are still dying in Iraq, so therefore KZ is a liar, or at least too biased to be a good writer.

That's the subtext to nearly all your comments. That indicates your disapproval of the comic is too tied up with your disapproval of the Iraq war - you are unable to seperate the two. If that's not emotional baggage, I'm not sure what is."

But you're not criticizing what I have actually written, but what you perceive my subtext to be. I never said that Combat Zone is a bad comic. It has its value as one perspective on the Iraq War from someone who was there. However, people should also read other sources if they want a more complete view of the war because Zinsmeister is biased. What I have argued is that a.) The author is a conservative editorialist, something many comics readers might not know, and to take that into account; b.) One source says that prisoner abuse was rare and discouraged, another says that it was common and encouraged. Shows the importance of consulting multiple sources and how understanding history is difficult because you encounter contradicting accounts; and c.) I don't think Zinsmeister is a liar, but I do believe he made a mistake by declaring the war over in June. Predictions of the future tend to be incorrect and should be avoided by journalists if they want to preserve their credibility. Doesn't question Zinsmeister's truthfulness, but does show how he can overreach in his desire to report positive news out of Iraq.

[Michael]

But you're not criticizing what I have actually written, but what you perceive my subtext to be. I never said that Combat Zone is a bad comic. It has its value as one perspective on the Iraq War from someone who was there.

But Bicycle Repairman, from what you've posted it is unclear whether you have even read the trade paperback "Combat Zone." Have you read it, or not??? -- because you do seem to be expressing rather strong opinions (which is fine) and implying that the author may be less than honest or at least have a twisted perspective of the truth because of his conservative political agenda (that you allude to). However, have you read the book?

What in the actual book do you find objectionable?

The actual book does not come across as some Conservative polemic. Essentially, it just portrays our troops as good guys, and pretty courageous. Has the comic book industry and have readers descended to such depths that even this is now viewed as objectionable?

Would you be happier with a comic that portrayed the commanding officers as stupid fat bullies blindly following the orders of neo-Nazi members of the Administration (see the Avengers "Red Zone" storyline with some elements of this sort of thing), or U.S. generals as war mongers with American GI's abusing innocent peace-loving Iraqis with blood dripping from their U.S. corporate-made bayonets? :eek:

Really, what is wrong with a storyline that portrays our soldiers in the field, and their commanding officers, as decent professionals who, in truth, often jeopardize their own lives to minimize civilian casualties in a wartime environment? Because that is a far more accurate portrayal of most of what is going on over there.

So anyway … have you read “Combat Zone” or not? :confused:

[Adam Crocker]

Remember, it was written to be a regular comic book series. Until Marvel’s publishing division’s executives lost their nerve and succumbed to pressure from these “progressive” elements – many of whom are their peers.

I could get more elaborative of how incompetent both Marvel and DC are at properly promoting untested material by unkown (in the industry) creators, but for now I'll take the route of simplicity and ask: what were the numbers for the orders of the first three issuse of Combat Zone? The question left out of your post is whether COMBAT ZONE's first two issues even had sufficient orders to merit publishing the five issue series in full (and they were cutting while keeping their commitments by going straight to trade), especially in an industry where it's a fight even to get a new superhero comic by unknown talent noticed.

Note I said groundbreaking TODAY. The climate in the industry, the geopolitical bias, has shifted so far to the Left that even a moderate positive portrayal of our troops is groundbreaking TODAY. And that, my friend, is a very sad commentary on the state of the industry.

Moderate positive portrayal of U.S. troops compared to what? I know of examples of comics, that you yourself have pointed out, that are highly critical of U.S. foriegn policy, but have nothing to actually say about U.S. troops in Iraq and never really touch on the subject. It's mostly limited to higher-ups rather than rank-and-file soldiers.

[Michael]

I could get more elaborative of how incompetent both Marvel and DC are at properly promoting untested material by unkown (in the industry) creators, but for now I'll take the route of simplicity and ask: what were the numbers for the orders of the first three issuse of Combat Zone? The question left out of your post is whether COMBAT ZONE's first two issues even had sufficient orders to merit publishing the five issue series in full (and they were cutting while keeping their commitments by going straight to trade), especially in an industry where it's a fight even to get a new superhero comic by unknown talent noticed.

Moderate positive portrayal of U.S. troops compared to what? I know of examples of comics, that you yourself have pointed out, that are highly critical of U.S. foriegn policy, but have nothing to actually say about U.S. troops in Iraq and never really touch on the subject. It's mostly limited to higher-ups rather than rank-and-file soldiers.

Well, from what I've heard, it appears that the threats of boycott and the mockery and hostility expressed by critics, left-wing comedians, and the like (who had not even read the actual script) played a significant role in the decision making process to cancel the regular comics run -- and some of this may have affected advance orders. I don't have the data on that. Sure, taking on this project in the present industry climate was controversial to begin with. The guys at the publishing arm should have had to guts to back up the project.

Portrayals of our military compared to what? Compared to anything. I've rarely if ever seen a positive portrayal of both senior commanding offers and troups on the ground, in Iraq or anyplace else. At most, in most comics, soldiers on the ground are mere window-dressing, part of the landscape, two-dimentional backdrop -- not flesh and blood human beings. And as you allude to, senior military officers are frequently portrayed as psycos, bullies, or idiots.

That's why Combat Zone is a breath of fresh air. And why it should have been properly promoted by Marvel, instead of buried in a trade paperback with zero promotion at the time of publication. I mean, jeeze, they didn't even bother to update their website.

Query: When was the last time Marvel published a trade paperback that did not consist of compilations of prior regular comic books? Doesn't the way this thing played out just seem a little bit strange. Does to me.

[StoneGold]

You know, I can't think of a decent war story, pretty much ever, that didn't have someone up in the chain of command being an asshole. That's just kind of the nature of the war story.

As for mainstream comics not featuring soldiers... that's because they aren't wearing silly tights. Marvel actually tried doing something with non-superheroes a while back with The Call, which featured cops, firemen and paramedics caught up in some kind of story. It didn't do too well. Thing is, soldiers are kind of passe when they're standing next to Iron Man.

Really, the odd part is that Marvel is publishing this as a trade at all, if they've cancelled the individual issues. I would have thought they'd of shelved the entire project. My guess is, there was something contractual about publishing the book somehow.

But, just in general, no Dan Jurgens-pencilled book in the last 7 years or so is going to break the sales charts.

[Michael]

Well guys, from the posts above I get the following sense: A lot of hard-core fans had no idea that Combat Zone was even published in August of this year. Probably because it was buried among trade paperbacks, not featured on the new release rack, not ordered at all by retailers who chose to boycott the TBP, and not promoted by Marvel – even on their website. (For example, I never saw it on the new releases rack in the largest comic book store in L.A. – I just happened to stop in a smaller shop that did have it on their rack, a month after publication, and was shocked that I had not heard about it). Anyway, only a very few of you have admitted actually reading the comic book – and that is very unusual for a comic book message board discussing Marvel publications.

The initial comments of Bicycle Repairman seem indicative of what happened when the project was first announced – in that I get the sense from his generalized comments (and from the fact that he’s not answered my repeated question) that he has not read the trade paperback and is unaware of the actual content of the book. What we saw was a kinda “shoot the messenger” approach. Zinsmeister was an embedded journalist, he was known to be supportive of the war effort, and made no qualms about respecting our troops – as evidenced by his prior serious works Boots on the Ground and Dawn Over Baghdad. Thus Progressive activists concluded that the project had to be stopped if at all possible. The actual content of the series was quite beside the point. Someone like Zinsmeister should not be allowed to speak in the comic book medium.

This goes to the broader question that I’ve raised from time to time, regarding distain for diversity of opinion in the comic book industry. Luckily for Karl Zinsmeister, he is a serious journalist and author -- his writing career will not rise or fall on whether he is accepted by the editors of major comic book publishing companies. The pinnacle of his dreams is not to become a full-time comic book author. Indeed, he was approached by Marvel, not the other way around. However, for anyone who really wants to succeed in this industry – it seems pretty clear that he should just forget it if he does not pass the ideological litmus test. Unless he is content to stay in the closet and focus his stories exclusively on guys ‘n gals in tights with no geopolitical innuendos. For writers on the Left, on the other hand, it is a whole different story. Look at the recent issues of Supreme Power, for example (and I’m not knocking that series, as I can admit it is well written and pretty amusing, even though I don’t agree with the slant of the author).

This is very unfortunate, because the comic book medium should have room for all points of view. It would be much more interesting, were diverse viewpoints encouraged. A lot more fun, really. And probably healthier for the long-term survival of these corporations, that rely on motion picture and other royalties for their survival, not just publication revenues. Because the broader base of the American public simply does not share many of the values espoused by some of the more “activist” comic book writers today.

Yet when executives at Marvel Enterprises tried to encourage diversity of opinion, by contacting Zinsmeister, they were slammed down. The sad way this played out might also reflect some internal political dynamic between the Marvel Enterprises “front office” executives, who probably encouraged the project, and the executives/editors in the publishing division who probably, from the outset, did not support it (and may have done everything in their power to sabotage it). But there, I’m only guessing. However, it is an educated guess, based on the kind of public statements with political overtones that guys like Joe Q have made in the past (particularly during the Bill Jemas days).

So … Still gotta say that it is great that Combat Zone was published at all. But sad that it was done the way it was. Says a lot about the ideological tyranny that to this day still reigns in the industry – with both publishers and retailers.

Which is … under the First Amendment … their right. But geeze, it makes things so much less interesting … for anyone who really wants to take the comic book medium seriously.

[Michael]

Oh, quick note. Here are some reviews/articles mentioning Combat Zone that you might be interested in reading. Of course Marvel could have picked up on 'em, maybe even (at zero cost) provided links to some of them on its website had it wished to promote the comic at all. Truth be told, it looks like the executives at Marvel just got cold feet as soon as the Manhattan literati starting whining about "war glorification."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007100

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/printer.php?Story=7117093

http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=004114

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011353.php

http://comicpundit.blogspot.com/2005/08/weekly-review-combat-zone.html

[BlairH]

Oh, quick note. Here are some reviews/articles mentioning Combat Zone that you might be interested in reading. Of course Marvel could have picked up on 'em, maybe even (and zero cost) provided links to some of them on its website had it wished to promote the comic at all. Truth be told, it looks like the executives at Marvel just got cold feet as soon as the Manhattan literati starting whining about "war glorification."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007100

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/printer.php?Story=7117093

http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=004114

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011353.php

http://comicpundit.blogspot.com/2005/08/weekly-review-combat-zone.html

I'd definately be interested in reading this. I think it's sad how comics have to be left-leaning almost by default (I still enjoy reading comics though. Even left leaning ones like the Ultimates)

[Michael]

You know, I can't think of a decent war story, pretty much ever, that didn't have someone up in the chain of command being an asshole. That's just kind of the nature of the war story.


Well, there was a time in comic books when the enemy forces were portrayed as the assholes, or worse -- as they really are today. Genocidal sexist bigoted antisemitic anti-democratic murderous terrorist religious fanatics seeking and maybe already having WMDs -- can't get much worse than that, unless maybe you go back to the Nazis. Yet the comic book industry has largely avoided like the PC Plague any hard-hitting portrayals of our enemy. Preferring to portray our senior military and government officials as scum instead. When these kind of geopolitical issues are touched upon at all, that is. But, I fear, this is a digression from the main discussion of Combat Zone.

[Core]

Genocidal sexist bigoted antisemitic anti-democratic murderous terrorist religious fanatics seeking and maybe already having WMDs -- can't get much worse than that, unless maybe you go back to the Nazis.

I honestly had to read that description twice to figure out what group you were referring to. Even then, the only thing that helped me figure it out was the anti-semitic part.

[Michael]

Really, the odd part is that Marvel is publishing this as a trade at all, if they've cancelled the individual issues. I would have thought they'd of shelved the entire project. My guess is, there was something contractual about publishing the book somehow.

By Jove, I think I’ve got it! Let's do a little role playing!

The big question is: Why did Marvel cancel the regular run of Combat Zone, leaving the impression that the project was cancelled altogether, yet 8 months later quietly publish the trade paperback with no publicity? It is really unheard of that Marvel would cancel a run but still publish the TPB. Why did they do this?

One theory is that Marvel was contractually bound to publish Zinsmeister’s comic from the very outset. Maybe, but I doubt it. Sight unseen, it would seem unusual for a publisher to enter into such an arrangement with a writer new to comic books, without seeing what the guy could produce, even if that writer did have experience in other literary and journalistic venues. But anything’s possible.

There may be another explanation that more closely comports with the psychology of corporate executives. After priming my analytic skills by reading several Robert Crais novels featuring private investigator Elvis Cole, I think I’ve put the pieces together. Caveat that the scenario described below is speculation on my part – the executives are Marvel are not confiding in me. You decide if the following makes sense to you.

When Karl Zinsmeister was first contacted by Marvel, there had to have been enthusiasm for the project, at least at some senior executive levels. In the past Marvel had been subjected to some negative press surrounding its politically biased editorial policies, and this may have been a sincere effort to open up the company to a writer with a “different” point of view. However, more than anything else, we’ve learned that there is nothing that the executives at Marvel Enterprises hate more than strong negative publicity. When the Manhattan literati raised their eyebrows, when Marvel was subjected to distain and mockery by enlightened forward-thinking entertainers, and when some dogmatic fans and retailers threatened boycott … these publishing executives just caved. I mean, who could take such peer pressure!

Normally, when dealing with an inexperienced comic book author wannabe, Marvel holds all the cards. It just cancels the project and tells the writer “better luck next time." However, Karl Zinsmeister is not such a wannabe. He is an experienced journalist and author with meaningful contacts, both with the news media and politically. If the executives at Marvel’s publishing division had given him the royal screw, it may not have died there. Marvel would probably have been subjected to criticism from supporters of our armed forces, that it capitulated to left-wing pressure to cancel a comic book series that dared to portray our soldiers as heroes. Zinsmeister might have even gone public himself to disclose the whole sordid tale. The executives at Marvel Enterprises would not like that kind of negative publicity either. Because most Americans actually respect our men and women in uniform. And it is most Americans, not just comic book fans, who buy movie tickets.

Imagine yourself to be an executive with Marvel Enterprises. If you found yourself in this box, what would you do? You are afraid of negative publicity, from both the Left and the Right. Think damage control. What should you do that will stir up as little negative publicity as possible? Hey, I’ve got it! Quietly publish the comic, not as a regular series, but as a trade paperback, months after its originally scheduled date. Do so with as little fanfare as possible. Don’t even update your website. And hope nobody notices.

This strategy would certainly work in terms of Marvel’s relationship with a gentleman like Karl Zinsmeister. As always in these circumstances, as a Marvel executive you would expect this professional author to support the book, and focus on the positive. On the other hand, cancellation of the regular comic book run probably satisfied the Left.

Brilliant approach. The “Suits” solve another problem. Heroes of the comic book publishing domain!

Whaddya think? Does this explanation have the ring of truth to you? It sure does me.

So, whether publication of Combat Zone as a trade paperback was an act of courage or an act of cowardice or a calculated business decision by the executives at Marvel – I’ve only got one thing to say to them: I’m glad you published it at all. I wish we could see more books like this.

But I kinda doubt we will.

[Shellhead]

"The War is Over, and We Won". Since June 20, 200 Coalition soldiers and over 3,000 Iraqis have been killed.

And of course that Iraq looks like is going to have a constitution. Iraq has had an election. The terrorists are suffering massive causalties. Despite some terrible decisions by Bush, this will go in the win column. Which will shock alot of people who have no idea how well things have gone (relatively speaking, after all it is a war - many people died on D-Day yet it was not a failure).


Heh. That constitution is more of a fancy invitation to a civil war, setting aside autonomous regions for both the Kurds and the Shi'ites, so they won't need to share their oil with the Sunnis. The election has been considerably less successful in uniting these three hating factions, at least compared to Hussein's brutal dictatorship. Their casualties are relatively small for a supposedly conquered nation, and this insurgency has been steadily wearing down our troops, their families, and the collective will of the american people. It turns out that you can't actually force three hostile factions into one happy democracy with a military occupation.

The invasion of Iraq was a bad idea, sold on false premises, and it lacked an exit plan. If we really needed to overthrow Saddam, it would have been better to have quickly declared victory and then left the country, rather than to allow this gradual erosion of our mighty reputation at the hands.

As mentioned before, the dwindling public support for this war made this comic an unlikely prospect for success. Marvel could have done a better job of marketing it... I never even heard of this title until this thread. While there may have been some objections to it, I'm sure they were pretty minor compared to the uproar over Avengers Disassmbled or Identity Crisis. Comic fans tend to be a little less focused on politics than average citizens, since comics tend to offer escapist entertainment.

[StoneGold]

Well, there was a time in comic books when the enemy forces were portrayed as the assholes, or worse -- as they really are today. Genocidal sexist bigoted antisemitic anti-democratic murderous terrorist religious fanatics seeking and maybe already having WMDs -- can't get much worse than that, unless maybe you go back to the Nazis. Yet the comic book industry has largely avoided like the PC Plague any hard-hitting portrayals of our enemy. Preferring to portray our senior military and government officials as scum instead. When these kind of geopolitical issues are touched upon at all, that is. But, I fear, this is a digression from the main discussion of Combat Zone.
Just out of curiosity... what can can you think of that shows terrorists as some kind of paragons of virtue? I mean, even in fairly leftist stories - let's take the first couple issues of the Marvel Knights Captain America for instance - the terrorists are strapping bombs to children as weapons. What books exactly are you talking about?

And if you didn't want to digress, why did you bring it up?

[Michael]

Just out of curiosity... what can can you think of that shows terrorists as some kind of paragons of virtue? I mean, even in fairly leftist stories - let's take the first couple issues of the Marvel Knights Captain America for instance - the terrorists are strapping bombs to children as weapons. What books exactly are you talking about?And if you didn't want to digress, why did you bring it up?

Real quick response because a while back we had the world's longest thread on all this, based on some articles I had written. In Marvel Knights Cap we saw Cap express essential agreement with many of the terrorist mastermind's charges against the U.S., with no real counter-argument by Cap other than "We promise not to do it anymore." (My paraphrase) -- nothing said by Cap about the horrors of Communism, etc., to defend the Cold War, for example. The hypothetical terrorist himself in that storyline did not in any way represent a portrait of the radical Islamist militants that actually confront us today. There is a lot in their hateful ideology as well as in their deeds that all decent human beings of all faiths should abhor.

In past conflicts, be it with Nazis (WWII) or Communists (Cold War), there were rather elaborate portrayals of the evil of our enemy. The interesting question, in my mind, was how this very real evil adversary that confronts us today was going to be portrayed in comics, while balancing the issue of not engaging in ethnic stereotyping or condemnation of an entire religion. For the most part this issue has been totally sidestepped, either with regular ol' bad guys, a couple of examples of hypothetical fictional terrorist groups, the U.S. Army and U.S. Government as the root cause, and/or a lot of finger pointing at the United States, as in "Blame America."

Of course to do justice to the issue of the radical Islamist movement, a writer would have to educate himself on the specifics of this hateful ideology and its long-range goals. And most writers who are left-leaning, who are inclined to be anti-war or even pacifist, have no real interest in doing so. It is a lot of work, and might actually lead them to change their opinions (as I did).

In fairness, over the past several months in most comics published by Marvel, the focus has returned to real storytelling and fewer left-wing polemics of the sort we saw in the couple of years after September 11th. Captain America is a good example of this, when the Marvel Knights line was finally dropped. It is a pleasure to be able to sit down and read a comic book without getting sick to one's stomach. And even with some comics where there is some in-your-face political editorializing (as in Supreme Power, most recent issue) I can't get too worked up. It just seems kinda silly.

For more on these kinds of topics generally, go to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies website and do a search for "Captain America" -- you'll find my longest article there. I don't want to get more into it now ... but I figured you deserved the courtesy of a response. Hope this, and the article if you wish to look at it, will do the trick.

[Michael]

We've done a lot of talking about the circumstances surrounding the publication of Combat Zone, the background of its author, politics, and so on. However, now that we've done that --

What is your reaction to the book itself?!!! (We have gotten some comments above already, which are interesting indeed). For those of you who have not read it yet, you should. It is not your common fare. Let us know! :)

[Bicycle-Repairman]

I've been busy the last few days, but I wanted to respond to some questions addressed to me earlier:

Yes, I have had a chance to look at Combat Zone. My problem with its content is not as much with what Zinsmeister has included but what he leaves out. For example, there's a page where a Patriot missile intercepts an Iraqi intermediate-range ballistic missile, scoring a direct hit. Zinsmeister is a big supporter of the Patriot and a proposed national missile defence system. The scene is meant to show the effectiveness of American military technology and the threat posed by Iraq's weapons.

What Zinsmeister neglects to mention is the Patriot's troubled record. Although heavily hyped during the Persian Gulf War, independent post-war analyses gave the Patriot a success rate as low as 0-10%. Upgraded versions of the Patriot were used in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the military credited them with destroying nine Iraqi missiles. However, the Patriot proved dangerously unreliable. The Patriot system would sometimes detect targets that did not exist, and had difficulty distinguishing between friendly aircraft and enemy missiles. Patriots shot down two coalition jets during Operation Iraqi Freedom, killing three crewmen, and an American fighter opened fire on a Patriot battery after being mistakenly targeted by it.

Another problem with the scenario involving the Patriot in Combat Zone is that the Iraqi missile is described as being an intermediate-range ballistic missile, or IRBM. After the enemy missile is intercepted, one of the characters says "Well. So much for the theory that Saddam got rid of all his intermediate-range ballistic missiles." United Nations Security Council resolutions forbade Iraq from possessing IRBMs and all other missiles with a range greater than 150 km. However, the missiles the Iraqis launched during Operation Iraqi Freedom were not IRBMs, but shorter-range Al Samud and Ababil-100 missiles and Frog-7 rockets that were permitted under the U.N. resolutions.

Also, the Patriot in Combat Zone is shown directly colliding with the Iraqi IRBM. This means the Patriot shown is probably supposed to be a PAC-3, a hit-to-kill variety that is designed to destroy an enemy missile with kinetic energy, rather than an explosive warhead, by ramming into it. The other versions of the Patriot are designed to explode in the proximity of its target. If it is indeed a PAC-3 featured in Combat Zone, it is another mistake, because the PAC-3 is designed to shoot down short and medium range ballistic missiles, not IRBMs.

I was also asked by Michael if I would object to a comic book that depicted "American GI's abusing innocent peace-loving Iraqis with blood dripping from their U.S. corporate-made bayonets". Of course I would, for I know of no evidence of U.S. soldiers bayoneting innocent Iraqis. However, I have not seen any mainstream comics featuring such a scenario.

[Michael]

I've been busy the last few days, but I wanted to respond to some questions addressed to me earlier:


I'm glad you were able to find the time to get a copy of Combat Zone.

Regarding your criticism of the book's treatment of Patriot Missiles: Zinsmesiter is telling it like it was. Ballistic missiles with intermediate ranges were fired at our troops. No one knows exactly what kinds they all were. Some are even thought to have been modified naval cruise missiles, according to the Army ordnance experts who studied the remains. The Patriot technicians gave the ranges Zinsmeister used in his books directly from the QR7 radar readouts. Zinsmeister was there and listened to these missiles exploding overhead and wrote down exactly what the interceptor crews told him. The details are in Boots on the Ground.

The Patriot missiles were quite effective. They did it just as Dan Jurgens illustrated--hit to kill. A good summary of the Patriot successes is at

http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/CCRN-6CCSBH

But of course all this was not the real focus of the book. It is interesting that other than these rather technical issues raised by Bicycle Repairman, he finds nothing objectionable in Combat Zone. And of course, there isn't. It is a great book.

[Jake V]

Jurgens did the art?

It might be worth a look then.

[Michael]

Jurgens did the art?

It might be worth a look then.

Yes, it is worth a look. Of course Combat Zone is not a technical treatise on the Patriot Missile. Anything but that. Don't be mislead by the theme of the last couple of posts. But it is nonfiction. And because of that, more dramatic than anything a storyteller could weave.

While in comic book form, the book is nonfiction in the sense that it reflects the real experiences of Karl Zinsmeister as an embedded journalist in Iraq. Though in the story he is only referred to as "reporter." Because he as the reporter is not the focus of the story. The focus is on the brave men he was with - men who are putting everything on the line for us. Jurgen's art illustrates the intensity of this experience. In a very effective way.

It is a fantastic book - so different from anything else published out there today. It is a real experience.

[Bicycle-Repairman]

Combat Zone writer Karl Zinsmeister has a new job. The following was posted at washingtonpost.com:

Bush names new domestic policy aide
Reuters
Wednesday, May 24, 2006; 11:45 AM


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush hired think tank scholar Karl Zinsmeister as his new top domestic policy adviser, the latest in a series of changes to the White House staff.

Zinsmeister, whose new role was announced by the White House on Tuesday, is a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and is editor-in-chief of the American Enterprise magazine.

He replaces Claude Allen, who stepped down in February and was later arrested on felony theft charges.

[Michael]

Congratulations Karl!