Heckuva Job, Wolfie!
Paul Wolfowitz finally announced his resignation as head of the World Bank. He'll be leaving at the end of June. I anticipate that more details on the terms of his departure will be forthcoming, but right now the world's press is more interested in examining why things went so wrong for Mr. Wolfowitz at this most prestigious of jobs. One such post-mortem appeared in this morning's NY Times.
Paul D. Wolfowitz was ready to move on from the Pentagon in early 2005. He had been thwarted in his effort to become defense secretary or national security adviser. And the war in Iraq had deteriorated. So when the World Bank presidency came open, he jumped at the opportunity.
It offered him a “second chance” to redeem his reputation and realize his ambitions, says a friend who has known him for decades. ...
Now, as friends and critics sort through the wreckage of Mr. Wolfowitz’s bank career, they wonder if it was doomed from the outset. Supporters say he arrived at the bank, a citadel of liberalism, from a four-year stint at the Pentagon, where he was an early champion of going to war with Iraq and left bearing its stigma. He was determined to shake up the status quo by rooting out what he saw as corruption and waste, and demanding measurable results from the bank’s many aid programs.
...others say Mr. Wolfowitz repeated the mistakes he had made at the Pentagon: adopting a single-minded position on certain matters, refusing to entertain alternative views, marginalizing dissenters. [Emphasis added]
Doomed from the outset? Probably, but not for the reasons his friends cited in the article. Mr. Wolfowitz was no banker or financial expert. He obviously knew little about the inner workings of the bank and saw only what he wanted to see based on a preconceived notion that the bank was wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. In other words, he was a combination of Michael Brown (who knew Arabian horses, but not emergency management) and John Bolton (who hated the institution he was appointed to). Add an absolutely horrendous management style, and the end result was pretty much preordained.
One of the questions I still have and one which probably won't be answered any time soon is why the White House appointed Mr. Wolfowitz to this position in the first place. Was it simply a reward for his service in promoting the Iraq War? Was it a way to subvert a notably liberal world institution? Was it a way to get him out of the Pentagon where he was beginning to cause more problems than he was worth once Donald Rumsfeld was pushed out of the picture?
Whatever the reason, he was a poor choice, just as so many of the Bush appointees have been.
Paul D. Wolfowitz was ready to move on from the Pentagon in early 2005. He had been thwarted in his effort to become defense secretary or national security adviser. And the war in Iraq had deteriorated. So when the World Bank presidency came open, he jumped at the opportunity.
It offered him a “second chance” to redeem his reputation and realize his ambitions, says a friend who has known him for decades. ...
Now, as friends and critics sort through the wreckage of Mr. Wolfowitz’s bank career, they wonder if it was doomed from the outset. Supporters say he arrived at the bank, a citadel of liberalism, from a four-year stint at the Pentagon, where he was an early champion of going to war with Iraq and left bearing its stigma. He was determined to shake up the status quo by rooting out what he saw as corruption and waste, and demanding measurable results from the bank’s many aid programs.
...others say Mr. Wolfowitz repeated the mistakes he had made at the Pentagon: adopting a single-minded position on certain matters, refusing to entertain alternative views, marginalizing dissenters. [Emphasis added]
Doomed from the outset? Probably, but not for the reasons his friends cited in the article. Mr. Wolfowitz was no banker or financial expert. He obviously knew little about the inner workings of the bank and saw only what he wanted to see based on a preconceived notion that the bank was wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt. In other words, he was a combination of Michael Brown (who knew Arabian horses, but not emergency management) and John Bolton (who hated the institution he was appointed to). Add an absolutely horrendous management style, and the end result was pretty much preordained.
One of the questions I still have and one which probably won't be answered any time soon is why the White House appointed Mr. Wolfowitz to this position in the first place. Was it simply a reward for his service in promoting the Iraq War? Was it a way to subvert a notably liberal world institution? Was it a way to get him out of the Pentagon where he was beginning to cause more problems than he was worth once Donald Rumsfeld was pushed out of the picture?
Whatever the reason, he was a poor choice, just as so many of the Bush appointees have been.
Labels: Cronyism, Ethics, World Bank
posted by Diane at 4:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home