The Unknown Known

Saw The Unknown Known, an Errol Morris interview with Donald Rumsfeld. It's very reminiscent of Fog of War, the interview with Robert McNamara. Just as McNamara did, Rumsfeld equivocates viciously, discusses mostly his role in the war that defined a presidency (here the Iraq, not the Vietnam war, though that old symbol of American hubris is brought up as well) and squirms to protect his image.

He is very fond of Carollian wordplay. The title comes from a memo where he iterates through all possibilities of known/unknown unknown/known, explaining the meaning of each. He misidentifies the phrase "unknown known" as being something which you believe you know, but which you do not (he gives a better interpretation later, that being something you are unaware that you know.) When discussing the Iraq war, he quotes "the belief in the inevitability of conflict may be the primary cause of conflict" and that "if you wish for peace you must prepare for war." Morris points out that this implies war is the only possibility and Rumsfeld replies that in his book he says "all generalizations are false, including this one" which is to say "fuck your logic." He often characterizes misleading oneself as "chasing the wrong rabbit."

The torture memos are discussed, and Rumsfeld bemoans the misinformation propagated by the press ("Not one person was waterboarded at Guantanamo bay!" he cries, glibly ignoring the other tortures of sadistic, cruel, and weirdly sexual natures.) 9/11 is inevitably discussed, causing Rumsfeld to refer to the unforeseen attack on Pearl Harbour (a deeply appropriate metaphor, considering that Pearl Harbour has its own conspiracy theories, and was the catalyst of its own war.)

Not that Morris gives him a fair time of it either. He sometimes subtly moves goalposts and twice leaves Rumsfeld stranded, blinking, waiting for the next question, his smile freezing and faltering, leaving him looking shifty and ill-at-ease. I believe Rumsfeld is a man deeply burdened by his mistakes. He was the secretary of defence during 9/11, during Guantanamo bay, he was even around for Watergate. He defends himself against critics by citing the unknowable quality of the future, the ambiguity of words, and the impossibility of knowing anything at all with a complete degree of certainty. I believe he is obsessed with being correct but that this costs him his certainty, leaving him equivocating and playing dry games. He began as a statesman, but life has left him a logician.