I think it's simpler than that, I think Hanlon's Razor applies here.
Not sure there has been a less capable Secretary of Defence in my lifetime than who they currently have in the role.
Note: not saying less objectionable, I'd put Rumsfeld right alongside for that but as much as I didn't like the man, it was hard to argue he was incapable.
Rumsfeld put in the work and was very smart. His natural disposition was such that, when given the ring of power, things went badly.
The current head of DoD is basically a manosphere influencer that bumbled into this job.
Now, I'm not an endocrinologist, just an aging guy, but from my current vantage point it appears that over the course of my life, many stupid decisions have been made that I have lived to tell about. I can't help but feel that my "wisdom of age" might just be testosterone getting out of the way.
This is all to say that our current "situation" just kinda looks like one insecure guys roid rage when you take a big step back.
> I can't help but feel that my "wisdom of age" might just be testosterone getting out of the way.
I was thinking the same recently, analyzing my life choices then and now. We can't do a double-blinds study with these things, but I believe you might be right.
Which is a little ironic given one of their arguments against DEI policies is that it chooses less qualified people in the name of diversity. If this administration isn't nominating on the basis of merit, what standing do they have to target law firms with DEI policies? [1]
It still irks me that people mocked Rumsfeld's explanation of unknown unknowns. The guy was probably a terrible excuse for a human being, but he wasn't stupid, and that quote was a pretty good explanation for why we shouldn't be overconfident in our knowledge:
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
It's the context that makes it crazy. Someone asked if there was any evidence of a link between Iraq and WMDs, at a press conference, and this is how he avoided giving an answer or taking any accountability.
If it makes you feel any better, think of it more as a catchy synecdoche to communicate “the man was a dangerous incompetent” than a formal verification disproval of his claim.
Rumsfeld heard it from some smart guy in NASA and repackaged it to sell Iraq war. This is similar to the influencers bandying around 'algorithms';
Rumsfeld is more like the Big Lebowski in parroting whatever to make him look smart. Never for a moment he stopped to think about the amount of damage that would haunt the veterans that served there.
He wrote a book about leadership but he lacked balls to do anything about Abu Ghraib for example, nor he did anything to stop the war. IMO he is just another corporate coward.
In his most stunning display of 'leadership', he used autopen to stamp his signature on condolence letters sent to the families of soldiers killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Imagine that!
> In his most stunning display of 'leadership', he used autopen to stamp his signature on condolence letters sent to the families of soldiers killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
I get what you're saying, but I would take this over our current administration any day of the week.
I think we're saying the same thing. I suspect there were a lot of people saying, "this probably won't work," but the Secretary of Defense pursued it anyways until real problems materialized.
I think True Believer is worse. I would say that if someone is willing to try something while still willing to accept that it might not work but need to confirm they'd be a rational person. A True Believer will not accept that the thing is not working and try to rationalize why others are still wrong.
a while back we had an army private as the secretary of defense.
end of the day, his experience as a private meant nothing towards the job. perhaps he was slightly more able to relate to the needs of the troops.
now we have a reserve captain. who was pushed out of the service for extremest views and body art. his experience means he hates the army, and his selection to the post means his political views have been vindicated.
a master of strategy? leader of men in battle? CEO of the worlds biggest institution? nope. he doesn't even understand those roles.
Not sure there has been a less capable Secretary of Defence in my lifetime than who they currently have in the role.
Note: not saying less objectionable, I'd put Rumsfeld right alongside for that but as much as I didn't like the man, it was hard to argue he was incapable.