Dumbledore and other leaders WAS: Moody's death

[Dana]

No: HPFGUIDX 179479

bboyminn:
> So, was General George Patton playing God when he send countless
> thousands of soldiers to their deaths? They called him 'Blood
> and Guts' Patton. Upon meeting Patton a soldier remarked, 'yeah,
> our blood, his guts'. While thousands went to die, Patton sat 
> safely in a war room pushing toy soldiers around on a map.
> 
> The point I'm making now, and the point I have made many times
> before, is that some one has to lead, some one has to make
> these dark and terrible decisions. Some one has to weight
> 'collateral damage' as a fact of war.

Dana:
I think you are missing the point entirely or at least in my opinion. 
In war the soldiers on the battlefield no longer just look at the 
bigger picture, they just fight for the person next to them and they 
depend on their war leader's to do the best they can to actually make 
it possible for these soldiers to not only win the battle but to 
survive it too. 

General George Patton could not have done anything without the 
willingness of the individual soldier to actually be there to execute 
his plans and so the General could never claim victory for the 
brilliance of his plans if those soldiers had not be willing to serve 
him. So for him to actually be successful he IS entirely dependent on 
those serving him on the battlefield and not him merely having a 
great plan. So at least he could do is consider the amount of danger 
that would come with each individual plan. To me, if a General is 
just looking for fame by coming up with the boldest plan, which if it 
works would give him timeless fame, should be relieved of duty as 
fast as possible because actually they are precisely that what they 
say they are fighting against. 

Everybody going into a war knows of the possibility of casualties but 
no one goes to war with the expectations or hopes of not coming back 
and certainly no one is expecting to die because the one they trusted 
would betray their willingness to serve this cause and thus lead them 
into an ambush by telling the enemy not only where and when to find 
them but to actually tell the enemy what they are going to do next. 

It is not about war leader's being able to prevent every possible 
loss of life's but they should always consider the probabilities of 
loses with each plan they make. Many General's were not willing to 
actually boldly risk the life's of the man serving under them if the 
probability of great loss was eminent. They looked for other 
possibilities to reach the same goal without endangering their men 
unnecessarily, it is predominantly politics that sends young men to 
an early grave unnecessarily by making these men fight for a false 
cause but most General's know what it is like to be a soldier as they 
once were just soldiers themselves. 

Personally I think you are confusing politics with actual war 
strategies. It are mostly the politicians who do not care about the 
numbers of casualties as long as their forces are still on the 
winning end. It are also predominantly them who are selling a war to 
the public and as long as there is still public support then they 
actually do not care how many of their soldiers die or at least most 
politicians do not care as some certainly do. 

It is actually the political leader who sells the idea of serving the 
Greater Good and that the end justified the means (see the propaganda 
machinery behind the many wars). It is never in the best interest of 
an army leader to actually consider those that serve under them to be 
expandable. If he gives his men the feel that they do not matter by 
making decisions that increases the probabilty of large casualties 
then it hurts the moral of these man hard and you'll risk losing the 
willingness of your men to serve you and thus risk your plan to 
actually becoming unsuccessful. 

That is why the American Army has the rule that no one is left 
behind, death or alive because it gives the sense that all of them 
matter equally. So men even risk their lives to get their fallen 
comrade out of enemy territory. That doesn't mean that unpopulair 
decisions are never made but there is still a profound difference 
between considering the probability of loses in a specific plan or 
willingly betray your men which increases the probability of death 
because no one can prepare themselves to the situation they are about 
to face. 


Also the men before they go into battle are actually debriefed of 
what is going to be asked of them and what is their objective, so 
they do not go in blindly into a war situation where they are fed a 
plan while their leader is actually trying to serve another. Like DD 
actual reason for this plan wasn't Harry's safe transport but 
actually trying to get Snape into the headmasters position. There was 
no other need for this betrayal at all. Not letting LV know the MoM 
plan was bogus would have given the Order a safe opportunity to move 
Harry from the Dursley's to a different location. It wasn't the plan 
in itself that put the Order at great risk but the fact that this 
plan was part of another scheme that DD seemed necessary to betray 
them for.  
 
If you want to know what I am talking about (although it is not 
specifically about generals) then I want to suggest watching Band of 
Brother's episode 7 and 8. You can see what lack of a devoted leader 
can mean for your battalion. Of course if you want to see a natural 
great compassionate leader at hand I surely recommend watching the 
entire series. 

Anyway the discussion is not about DD not putting himself on the 
frontline of the battle because essentially he did in OotP, for me 
the major problem is that I can't reconcile with is DD's betrayal of 
those serving under him and in the end it being considered a good 
thing because it served some greater purpose. It was entirely 
unnecessary, disrespectful to those willing to sacrifice their lives 
for the cause and in the end it served no one because kids still died 
at Hogwarts. 

And with this last I include DD's plan for Snape to kill him because 
in the end (which I still consider another betrayal) I still do not 
see how it served Draco or the school because essentially someone 
still died because of the loss of the protection of Hogwarts too. 
Saving one life to lose another seems meaningless to me but maybe I 
am just entirely ignorant to what is considered to be good. For me, I 
can only see a lot of people depending on a man that wasn't worthy of 
their trust at all and I do not care if Harry saves the day by sheer 
luck and get rewarded for it because essentially DD has done nothing 
for him either because his survival was a result of LV using his 
blood and not something DD did for him and neither was the Hallow 
thing something DD set up so Harry could safe the day by being the 
Elder Wand's owner. 

Also I saw someone stating that of course Harry would forgive DD 
because DD was his friend and was there for him when no one else was. 
Sorry but I am not convinced that DD did not perfectly set this up so 
Harry had no other choice but to be dependent on DD. If Harry had 
been raised by a loving family (even other then Sirius himself) then 
he would never have been so willing in accepting what DD had to offer 
and in the end this still wasn't much at all. This has nothing to do 
with friendship but with depriving a kid of enough love that he would 
actually cling to that what is given to him. DD says he had an 
interest in Harry wellbeing but the funny part is that if DD's plan 
would have worked then even if Harry would have gone after the 
Hallows he could never get the power of all three because DD's plan 
was for the wand to end up without a owner never to be claimed again.
 
Of course this is just another plothole and JKR writing with the 
knowledge that the plan failed but unfortunately when DD made up his 
will he still didn't know the plan would actually fail. 

JMHO

Dana