11-09-2024, 02:20 AM
The following is my attempt at this topic. I ask the reader to use the example below in the context of the source material.
Donald Rumsfeld was devoid of intellectual curiosity with devasting historical outcomes. For instance, he dismissed the Fall of Saigon (1975) as something that happened.
During the Reagan admin, Rumsfeld concluded that American troops weren't suitable for peacekeeping roles. In the Middle East, U.S. troops presented a too great a target for terrorists. So, peacekeeping duties are best left to Kiwi and Fijian forces.
In his mind, those two matters sat alongside regime change in Iraq (2003) without any issue. Rumsfeld is an example of someone with the means and wares to get elected to Congress and serve in the Ford and Bush cabinets. But he didn't have the tools to make informed decisions or form sound advice to the president.
Did Rumsfeld employ build-in contradictions to justify his various stances?
Unlike the supporters of imperial racism/the British Empire, who relied upon illogical conclusions to support their stances, Rumsfeld's thought process never advanced that far.
(The British ruling India demonstrates those contradictions perfectly, but that is another topic).
Was Rumsfeld the village idiot who served as Secretary of Defence twice? I argue that he was smart enough to occupy and manipulate a seat of power. However, he lacked the curiosity and insights to connect the dots. If one follows this reasoning, Rumsfeld represents an inherently dangerous character.
More on Rumsfeld:
Donald Rumsfeld was devoid of intellectual curiosity with devasting historical outcomes. For instance, he dismissed the Fall of Saigon (1975) as something that happened.
During the Reagan admin, Rumsfeld concluded that American troops weren't suitable for peacekeeping roles. In the Middle East, U.S. troops presented a too great a target for terrorists. So, peacekeeping duties are best left to Kiwi and Fijian forces.
In his mind, those two matters sat alongside regime change in Iraq (2003) without any issue. Rumsfeld is an example of someone with the means and wares to get elected to Congress and serve in the Ford and Bush cabinets. But he didn't have the tools to make informed decisions or form sound advice to the president.
Did Rumsfeld employ build-in contradictions to justify his various stances?
Unlike the supporters of imperial racism/the British Empire, who relied upon illogical conclusions to support their stances, Rumsfeld's thought process never advanced that far.
(The British ruling India demonstrates those contradictions perfectly, but that is another topic).
Was Rumsfeld the village idiot who served as Secretary of Defence twice? I argue that he was smart enough to occupy and manipulate a seat of power. However, he lacked the curiosity and insights to connect the dots. If one follows this reasoning, Rumsfeld represents an inherently dangerous character.
More on Rumsfeld:
