DD's ultimate goal (was: Dumbledore the General)

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 124263


In 124239 Debbie [elfundeb] wrote:
>> Rather than being a *bad* strategist, his [DD's] 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. <<


SSSusan:
This is a very interesting take on what DD might be thinking.  I'm 
reminded how literary types sometimes point out that what we're 
presented with in the *very first* chapter of a book often gets 
forgotten but often is vitally important.  Way back in PS/SS 1, 
McGonagall pointed out that there were powers DD possessed but 
was "too noble to use."  I think this could be considered evidence 
that Deb's view of DD's tactics is right.


In 124240, Alla offered:
>> Moral superiority is great, but people are getting killed and
Dumbledore's unwillingness to go after Voldie full stop does not
look to me as "non stooping" to their levels, but more like
foolishness. <<


SSSusan:
I do have to wonder, by way of comparison, how foolish Martin Luther 
King, Jr., looked to people in the `50s & `60s who wanted change NOW, 
through force if necessary, as well as to his opponents?  Yup, I can 
see opponents laughing at how "weak" a foe this made him, yet non-
violence was MLK's *committed* strategy.  And change did come 
eventually, perhaps, if I might be so bold as to suggest, in large 
part because of his commitment to non-violence and the trust that 
engendered in whites who weren't at first sure about change.

Then again...

Phoenixgod said in 124243:
>> 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. <<

To which Debbie replied in 124249:
>> If you set aside your principles of justice for the purpose of
conducting a war, then when the war is over, you won't have the
moral capital to be pushing for social change. <<


SSSusan:
This is the question which needs to be answered, I suppose.  In time 
of WAR, *can* the principles be held onto, or must they be set aside 
for the sake of winning the war?  

I know that clinging to them goes against many people's notions of 
vengeance and what's necessary during war, but maybe it's just what 
JKR is going to hold up a necessary??

If Deb is right that DD is holding to principles of pushing for true 
social change, not just victory-whatever-it-takes, then here is where 
my concern comes in:  To what degree do the other Order members buy 
into the need to do things this way?  If DD kicks it in HBP, as many 
fans believe he will, who'll take over?  Do the others believe in 
DD's vision as strongly?  Do the younger folks even know it's the 
goal and buy into it at all?  What then?

Siriusly Snapey Susan