12 votes

Donald Rumsfeld, influential but controversial George W Bush defense secretary, dies at 88

8 comments

  1. [7]
    snowcrash
    Link
    I'm no fan of Rumsfeld. While I find celebrating people's deaths in bad taste, I'll say I think a lot of humans died because of his actions, and I do not think he made the world a better place. He...

    I'm no fan of Rumsfeld. While I find celebrating people's deaths in bad taste, I'll say I think a lot of humans died because of his actions, and I do not think he made the world a better place. He was one of the chief architects of the Iraq invasion. For those that are interested more about this, the excellent Slow Burn podcast Season 5 is about the Iraq invasion and touches on this.

    However, there is one tiny thing I do like about Rumseld - so called Rumsfeldian Epistemology.

    because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know

    (source)

    It's a nice way of classifying knowledge, and I find I use it even in work contexts, like estimating software projects and leaving in buffer for "unknown unknowns." He used it to advocate for starting a war though, which is nontrivially worse than my software inefficiencies.

    12 votes
    1. [3]
      NomadicCoder
      Link Parent
      I never understood why he was given so much heat for that statement. It's a true, and useful statement. I could see myself saying something very similar if the context called for it.

      I never understood why he was given so much heat for that statement. It's a true, and useful statement. I could see myself saying something very similar if the context called for it.

      6 votes
      1. [2]
        spit-evil-olive-tips
        Link Parent
        I think a large part of the criticism comes from the context of the question he gave that as an answer to. Found a transcript of the full press conference And for context, this is February 2002,...

        I think a large part of the criticism comes from the context of the question he gave that as an answer to.

        Found a transcript of the full press conference

        Could I follow up, Mr. Secretary, on what you just said, please? In regard to Iraq weapons of mass destruction and terrorists, is there any evidence to indicate that Iraq has attempted to or is willing to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction? Because there are reports that there is no evidence of a direct link between Baghdad and some of these terrorist organizations.

        Rumsfeld: Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.

        And so people who have the omniscience that they can say with high certainty that something has not happened or is not being tried, have capabilities that are -- what was the word you used, Pam, earlier?

        And for context, this is February 2002, so a few months after 9/11, but about a year before the invasion of Iraq begins in March 2003. They're beating the "Saddam has WMDs" drum real hard. Just ctrl-F that transcript for "weapons of mass destruction" and:

        the fact that [Iraq is] engaging in the development of weapons of mass destruction.

        This is -- it is a country that threw out the inspectors, that has an active weapons of mass destruction program.

        pretty much self-evident, that every year that goes by and the inspectors are not there, the development of their weapons of mass destruction proceed apace, bringing them closer to a time when they will have those weapons developed in a form that is more threatening than it had been the year before or the year before that.

        So in that context, the reporter asks him if there's any actual concrete evidence for the claims he's making, and he responds with a non-sequitur / truism about known knowns and known unknowns and so on. Completely dodged the question.

        12 votes
        1. NomadicCoder
          Link Parent
          Thanks. That makes sense. The problem is that most of the criticism was framed as if he was just babbling and saying nonsense, but the phrase itself makes perfect sense if you actually read it. I...

          Thanks. That makes sense. The problem is that most of the criticism was framed as if he was just babbling and saying nonsense, but the phrase itself makes perfect sense if you actually read it. I suspect that a lot of the criticism was lost in translation and people who didn't understand the statement just heard "lots of words, confusing, must be bad".

          2 votes
    2. [2]
      ras
      Link Parent
      Sadly, I'd be willing to bet this Rumsfeldian Epistemology may be what he's remembered for long into the future.

      Sadly, I'd be willing to bet this Rumsfeldian Epistemology may be what he's remembered for long into the future.

      3 votes
      1. mooey
        Link Parent
        I know what you mean. My dad's already talking about him in the same way he talked about both Bushes once Trump got elected.

        I know what you mean. My dad's already talking about him in the same way he talked about both Bushes once Trump got elected.

        4 votes
    3. callmedante
      Link Parent
      I didn't quite understand the criticism over that statement, either. It has always reminded me of the Johari window, just using a slightly different phrasing.

      I didn't quite understand the criticism over that statement, either. It has always reminded me of the Johari window, just using a slightly different phrasing.

      3 votes
  2. nerb
    Link
    It's rude to celebrate a death, best to mourn the life.

    It's rude to celebrate a death, best to mourn the life.

    4 votes