One of my first editorial cartoons was a single panel criticism of Russia’s blatant support for the Assad regime, which had already begun massacring the Syrian opposition. Two years later, I think it’s also appropriate to criticize U.S. policy, which is supporting moderate elements of the opposition in a hesitant and limited manner. The CIA-administered support, which includes non-military aid as well as small arms, and recently, a number of anti-tank weapons, has helped  sustain the opposition against the Syrian army without tipping the balance in the opposers’ favor. If one believes in both the competency and cruelty of U.S. foreign policy, this strategy could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to subject each side to the slow, bloody death of a civil-war stalemate, with hopes of some negotiated settlement down the line. However, the U.S.’s limited intervention could simply be a clumsy and risk-averse policy meant to create the illusion of “helping,” while inadvertently prolonging the conflict and allowing more lives to be lost on both sides.

Over the past three decades, local police forces have seen a tremendous influx of military weaponry and technology. Investigative reporter Radley Balko writes that starting in 1997, the “1033 Program” has allowed hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military-grade weaponry to be transferred to local civic police stations. This inventory includes tanks, grenade launchers, and .50 caliber machine guns that are largely impractical for police work. The tactics have also become militarized. Criminologist Peter Kraska estimates that annual deployments of SWAT and paramilitary police have surged from 3,000 in 1980 to around 45,000 in present times. This increase appears to be a result of mission creep — while originally conceived to be used in the most extreme scenarios such as hostage situations and bank robberies, Kraska points out that the majority of SWAT raids are now centered on drug-related crimes, with authorities often breaking down doors during pre-dawn hours to serve warrants. While these forces have an important role in dealing with the most volatile situations, the huge surge in the use of SWAT teams and military-grade weapons for regular police work should raise concerns about the impact of militarization on the relationship between law enforcement and civilians.

His main contention with the issue of sexual assault in the military was that women are persistent in their “desire to be raped.”

“Listen, we try to butch them up as much as we can. I mean, have you seen a woman in uniform? Even the hottest woman looks a little, well, mannish. But these women are absolutely determined to be raped, showing off the sweet curvature of their toned, post-boot camp asses in even the baggiest of camo pants. And then they’re surprised when they get sexually assaulted?”

He also insisted that officially allowing women to fight in combat situations has only added to the problem. “I mean, seriously, ladies? Are you trying to turn our fantasies into reality? When you go out into the Afghani desert with your AK-47, so self-assured and curvy, you’re basically your own rapist by tempting us so completely. Plus, if you’re the only available woman around for 100 miles, what do you expect will happen? ”

The spokesman also said that the number of reported rapes was shocking. “A full 10% of these so-called rapes and sexual assaults are reported. That’s completely unacceptable. We’re looking to bring this number as close to 0% as possible.”

The source continued, saying, “We don’t believe in miracles so we realize there will always be whiny women crying rape, but we do believe in the power of the U.S. military to intimidate and sidetrack these women until they shut up.”

When asked about whether or not he thinks the military fosters a rape culture, he replied that it did not. “There is no ‘rape’ culture. If some men are overly sexually aggressive, that’s the fault of biology and being primed by their testosterone, the very force which makes them such capable soldiers,” he said.

“Women who find that uncomfortable or unwelcome shouldn’t put themselves in a military environment,” he added.

He also spoke about the recent House bill which seeks to impose more stringent punishments on servicemen and women convicted of rape or sexual assault. “This bill was ridiculous. You can’t punish what doesn’t happen. But thank God it at least didn’t remove report of rape from the military chain of command, where it belongs, where we can keep an eye on these women and their ridiculous claims.”

He concluded by addressing what he called “the absurdity” of claims that men are raped and sexually assaulted in the military.

“That’s ridiculous. If you’re enough of a fairy to let someone rape you, then you don’t belong in America’s military. We still have a war to fight. We don’t have the time or the resources to help you guard your own back door all day.”