Dumbledore the General

[phoenixgod2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 124243



Debbie:

> He's not being reactive.  We know the Order has been actively 
> recruiting supporters while Voldemort went after the prophecy.  
> Charlie is working internationally.  Bill is working on the 
> goblins.  Hagrid went (largely unsuccessfully) to the giants.  
> However, he is fighting a defensive war rather than an offensive 
> one.  

Unless you happen to be Russia, defensive wars are generally a bad 
proposition. You need to put pressure on the enemy, not allow the 
enemy to pressure you, which was what he was allowing in OOTP.
 

> In any event, Dumbledore's failure to mount an offensive against 
> Voldemort in OOP seems consistent with my view of the Order.  I 
> believe that Dumbledore's founding of the Order represents a 
> rejection of traditional strategies, such as the ones you suggest.  
> Rather than being a *bad* strategist, his approach is 
> revolutionary.  Dumbledore's objective is not to beat, or kill, the 
> DEs and save the wizarding world from them, though at the DoM the 
> Order members do fight to protect Harry & Co.; the goal must be to 
> change their thinking *and* the thinking of the average witch or 
> wizard, or else there will be endless waves of Grindelwalds and 
> Voldemorts to fight against.  And if he is to do that, he can't 
> stoop to their level.

The tactics I suggest are not 'stooping' to the enemies level. 
Stooping to their level would involve Crucio'ing children, killing 
kittens, raping helpless muggles, dark magic of all sorts, liberal 
use of the Imperious curse, I could go on. Smart tactics are not 
evil, they're smart. That is how you win wars.

If I were a much darker Dumbledore, say more like Crouch Sr, I would 
start with all those lovely childern the death eaters send so 
lovingly into Dumbledore's care every year. But I don't. I don't 
think that any of my tactics are in the least morally objectionable. 

I admire DD, because for all his faults, he is a forward minded 
person when it comes social justice. But the middle of war is not the 
time to be engaging in it. He should wait till he's done and start 
spending all that political capital and good will he will have 
earned. The middle of a war is not the time or place for a social 
revolution, IMO.

> The difference between these suggestions (even the use of Fleur -- 
> who is not, as far as we know, in the Order -- as a siren) 

So you would argue that female spies who sometimes used their wiles 
and bodies to gain valuable intelligence in WWII and many times 
before and after, were engaging in morally wrong acts even if they 
managed to save lives with the information gained? Am I reading you 
right?

And Fleur isn't a siren. She's a veela. A way different beast ;) 

>and the 
> actions the Order does take is that they make use of deception and 
> underhanded tricks to hurt the DEs, either physically or 
financially 
> or by wrongfully taking away their freedom.  I believe the *Good* 
> side cannot win this war if they engage the DEs on their own terms; 
> they can only win by moral superiority.   

With all due respect I think that is naive. Wars are won by many 
means, but superionr morals are never one of them. DD should win 
first and then engage in his social reforms. 

> I know that there is a large contingent on this list who believe 
> Dumbledore *is* deceptive and no better than the DEs.  Yes, he has 
> lied on occasion.  He lied to Fudge, taking the blame for the DA to 
> protect Harry, his best weapon. 

I'm sure that by now everyone on the list thinks I hate DD. I don't. 
Before OOTP I would have placed him as #2 on my list of favorite 
characters, but in Book five he fell in my estimation. I want to like 
him again. I really do.

> The Order was doing this, but apparently more quietly.  (They 
didn't 
> have access to the Daily Prophet.)  From OOP ch. 5:  "'But if none 
> of you are putting the news out that Voldemort's back --' Harry 
> began. 'Who said none of us are putting the news out?' said 
> Sirius. 'Why d'you think Dumbledore's in so much trouble?'"  
> Admittedly, Dumbledore erred by not using vehicles like the 
Quibbler 
> to get the word out.

Once again bad tactics because they were failing tacitcs. If Hermione 
is more effective than the collective efforts of all of the adults 
then they need to rethink the age restriction on Order members. 
 
> Actually, I think this is Snape's job -- not to trail Lucius to DE 
> meetings but to use his Legilimency skills to find out what was 
> going on.  How else did they learn so quickly that Voldemort was 
> after the prophecy?  And they do have spies in the Ministry, who do 
> spread misinformation, such as rumors that Sirius is in Tibet.

That is a good start, but tricking the ministry about Sirius should 
be a pretty low priority. Especially if it means Auror teams aren't 
focused on Voldemort. I personally think that Percy is an active Spy 
for DD in the ministry. If thats true then its quite possibly the 
smartest thing DD has done so far. Lets hope it's true.

> I am sure that Dumbledore would respond that Harry has been 
> preparing himself for what is going to come. ;-)  I also believe 
> Dumbledore would respond that Harry must choose to prepare 
himself.  > He will be a much more effective weapon if he does not 
feel like > he's being forced into the war against his will.

I'm not talking about taking the same spells 90% of the other 
students at Hogwarts also know and using them in more practical 
situations. I'm talking about full on boot camp. I'm talking about 
Moody screaming at Harry at five in the morning, "Get up you half 
blooded wand-stroker. Move that skinny a** of yours. you think you 
learned how to dodge with that fat cousin of yours? I got one leg and 
I can run circles around you lad!" (That was kinda fun to write)

> Well, once the battle begins doesn't every general have to resort 
to 
> flying by the seat of his pants?  I don't think Dumbledore believes 
> in elaborate plans because it is unlikely they will be carried out 
> as planned

Thats true of battlefield tactics. The ebb and flow of a physical 
conflict defies the ability to plan perfectly. Strategy-the 
chessboard of war is a different animal. while individual battles can 
be won or lost based on a variety of factors, the overall map remains 
remarkably consistant from battle to battle and can be planned with a 
much greater level of certainty. 

>>History is the result of the decisions of too many 
>people for any individual's plan to control, and Dumbledore knows 
>it.  From POA ch. 22:  "The consequences of our actions are always 
>so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very 
>difficult business indeed."
 
I would disagree. I think that there have been many people with the 
strength of will to direct the flow of history both in politics, war, 
and religion as a single individual.  The right individual has much 
more power than you give them credit for in the sweep of history. 
Everyone from Alexander the Great down to Hitler and even President 
Bush have managed to change the world through nothing more than their 
will to do so. Harry, Dumbledore, and Voldemort are three such people 
and they are set against each other.  

phoenixgod2000