Tag Archives: wolfowitz

Rewarding Success (Wolfowitz’s Promotion)

Bush Picks Wolfowitz for World Bank President,” by Adam Entous, Reuters, 16 March 2005, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=586607.

President Bush has selected Paul Wolfowitz to be the new President of the World Bank.

President Bush on Wednesday selected Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a magnet for controversy as one of the leading architects of the Iraq war, as his choice for World Bank president.

This is wonderful. Baghdad Spring, and the hot chicks to go with it, would never have happened without Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. At first I was worried that he was being “kicked upstairs,” but then…

European sources said Wolfowitz’s name was circulated informally among board directors several weeks ago and was rejected. “Mr. Wolfowitz’s nomination today tells us the U.S. couldn’t care less what the rest of the world thinks,” one source said.

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier suggested other candidates could be considered. “It’s a proposal. We shall examine it in context of the personality of the person you mention and perhaps in view of other candidates.”

If the French are mad at the promotion of an American, I’m happy. Bush is staking international political capital on Paul’s promotion. Good luck to both of them! And God bless their work!

Update: Dr. Barnett agrees

A short comment on Wolfowitz for World Bank: He does have the background, and he’ll probably do a really good job. He wants to be his own guy, and this is one helluva job for someone with his long career of working with foreign governments. To me, it’s putting in the WB a guy who’s really smart on developing Asia (former ambassador to Indonesia famous for his immersion techniques), and that’s a huge plus right now. Getting all of Asia into the Core is more important than fixing the Middle East in the grand scheme of things–a lot more important. Having someone Bush really trusts in that job is key–a very good sign. It’s yet another amazing turn for a guy with an amazing career. I honestly see it as overwhelmingly positive, understanding the many misgivings many have about him. Comparing him to McNamara is nonsense, really. Two very different people. Wolfowitz is no technocrat, not even a Vulcan. Deep down, he’s far more romantic in his understanding of the world than anyone realizes, in my opinion. He’ll do fine. It’ll be a great choice in the end.

May Allah Protect the Syrians – or – The Wolfowitz Plan

“Mr. President, Here’s How to Make Sense of Your Second Term, Secure Your Legacy, And, Oh Yeah, Create a Future Worth Living,” by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Esquire, pg 128, February 2005.

Unhelpful Sabre Rattling: Lebland, Syria, US,” by “Collounsbury,” Lounsbury, http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/287898.html?view=1181082, 14 February 2005.

Re: The Assassination Was Tragic…,” by “Collounsbury,” Lounsbury, http://www.livejournal.com/users/collounsbury/287898.html?thread=1176218#t1176218, 15 February 2005.

Tying together two tangentially related Collounsbury posts

None of this is worth it. Syria needs to reform its economy to be sure, and the sooner the better. Bloody basket case, but there is no key state interest for the US to destabilize Syria.

and

Egypt is not (and if one thinks it is, one needs much, much better idea about the region) making progress. The regime is treading water, playing a song and dance game to keep the gullible Americans paying its bills, and when it blows, the “transformation” is not going to be pretty.

Egyptian gov is the US’s little whore, and she’s painted up really nice, but she’s got AIDS.

And this is your model for Syria. May Allah protect the Syrians.

In the first post, C denies any “key state interest” in destabilizing Syria. In the second, on another point, he notes that U.S. policies can be disasterous for another state.

From reading his blog, I gather C is a realst who is strongly opposed to destabilizing regimes and harming societies. We should all be careful of the ill we cause. And clearly a policy of regime transformation that “blows up” is a failure. However, the Lounsebury position is too extreme. Causing state chaos can be beneficial. It serves as a warning to all other rogue regimes that they cannot rely shoft-term American interests to save them.

This ties into regime change. As Dr. Barnett writes in Esquire

Version #3 (Ugly) is delivered sotto voce. Just have Paul Wolfowitz show [North Korean Leader] Kim the “six-month reconstruction plan” the Pentagon neocons drew up for the postwar occupation. If he thinks you’re bluffing, then instruct Wolfie to slip him some of those morgue shots of Uday and Qusay looking al stiched up like a pair of Frakensteins. Kim’ll get the hint. Your administration has proven that you’re willing to wage war with almost no concern for the resulting VIP body count, the subsequent incompetent occupation, or the inevitable political uproar back home. I say when you’ve got it, flaunt it.

The reconstruction of Iraq has gone worse than it should have. But the lesson — that the U.S. is willing to throw a state into chaos — is very valuable. This encourages conservative forces in rogue regimes to advocate normalization of relations. Good.

Update: The whole article is now online.

The Tipping Point

Mass Resignations Before Iraq Vote,” Associated Press, http://www.sierratimes.com/05/01/16/mass_resignations.htm, 17 January 2005 (from Democratic Underground).

In the past year, the enemy has achieved a tipping point. They have managed to shift the insurgency into a general anti-Americanism into the tribal anti-Iraqi war. The Salafists and the Ba’athists have coopted the tribal structure and removed a functioning government from substantial parts of the country.

In Iraqi’s third cities the process has been helped by the violent reKurdization of the city

(AP) U.S. and Iraqi officials are scrambling to recruit new police and election workers in Mosul after thousands of them resigned in the face of rebel intimidation. A new police chief was appointed a week ago to command a force of barely 1,000 police. Last November the city had 5,000 police.

Not that the Salafists-Ba’athists need the help

Similar mass resignations are believed to have occurred in other Sunni Muslim areas of northern, central and western Iraq.

An uberhawk Pentagon official describes the violence as “extraordinary”

U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged that the security threat to the Jan. 30 election was worse than in last October’s nationwide balloting in Afghanistan and that it was impossible to guarantee “absolute security” against the “extraordinary intimidation that the enemy is undertaking.”

The Salafists-Ba’athists are worse than the Taliban

“I would underscore that there was intimidation in Afghanistan — the Taliban threatened all kinds of violence against people who registered or people who voted,” Wolfowitz told reporters Sunday in Jakarta, Indonesia. “But I don’t believe they ever got around to shooting election workers in the street or kidnapping the children of political candidates.”

How Secretary of State designate Condoleeza Rice “dual-track” military-political policy effected this will be left to history. Did not storming Fallujah in April cement the Salafist-Ba’athist tribal links, or safely limit the insurgency only to Arab Sunnis? Maybe both?

What will happen to the Sunni Arab lands? Will they become Iraq’s “West Bank,” ignored and suppressed for decades while the rest of the state progresses? Will it it become a haven for Salafist attackes on Saudi Arabia and Syria (not necessarily a bad thing) or a new Talibanistan for international terrorists (a very bad thing)? Will American-Kurdish-Shia death squads liquidate the insurgency, or will the Salafist-Ba’athists liquidate the free Iraqi government?

The end of a functioning police force in Iraq is an insurgent victory. The election will be an insurgent defeat. What next?