Example #3 of the Bush agenda: Paul Wolfowitz

A look at Wolfowitless's record

Next is one of my favorites, Paul Wolfowitz. For a partial rundown of why I say Wolfowitless is, well, witless, check out More on Wolfowitz and the blunders of the Bush administration, Wolfowitz’s Reason 2 why Shinseki was wrong, More on Wolfowitz and the blunders of the Bush administration, and Wolfowitz's Reason 3 why Shinseki was wrong. What some people might not be aware of is that Wolfowitless was primarily responsible for drafting the blueprint for the Bush/neocon world view. In 1992, Wolfowitless, then undersecretary of defense for policy, co-wrote the draft of a document entitled "Defense Planning Guidance." From an article entitled "Meet the Neocons," here is a good description of Wolfowitz's writing:

In 1992, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had a strategy report drafted for the Department of Defense, written by Paul Wolfowitz, then Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy. In it, the U.S. government was urged, as the world’s sole remaining Superpower, to move aggressively and militarily around the globe. The report called for pre-emptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions, but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when “collective action cannot be orchestrated.” The central strategy was to “establish and protect a new order” that accounts “sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership,” while at the same time maintaining a military dominance capable of “deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Wolfowitz outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure “access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil” and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.

Gee, doesn't that sound familiar? If you want to read more, check out articles from the Washington Post and New York Times. PBS's "Frontline" reported that "Controversy erupts after the draft is leaked to the press. The White House orders Defense Secretary Cheney to rewrite it. In the new draft there is no mention of preemption or U.S. willingness to act alone." So in 1992, Wolfowitz's ideas were rejected, but in 2002, they were implemented. And this strategy has worked out so well in Iraq, right? Also, keep in mind some of Wolfowitless's other brilliant proclamations about Iraq. In his Congressional testimony of February 27, 2003, Wolfowitless said that the troop requirements after the war would be minimal because many other countries–even those that opposed the war–would send troops for the occupation, Iraqis would provide much of the manpower, the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, and that the cost of rebuilding Iraq would be paid by Iraqi oil, not U.S. taxpayer money. Wolfowitz provided no data or evidence to support these assertions, which all turned out to be flat wrong.

So what does Bush do? Instead of firing Wolfowitz, instead of even criticizing him, Bush decides to appoint Wolfowitless as the next president of the World Bank. On the one hand, that means that Wolfowitless will no longer have a direct role in our military, which is good. On the other hand, he has been put in a position to further spread the Bush/Neocon philosophy in world affairs, and that is bad.

An overview of the World Bank

The World Bank briefly describes its purpose as follows:

The World Bank Group’s mission is to fight poverty and improve the living standards of people in the developing world. It is a development Bank which provides loans, policy advice, technical assistance and knowledge sharing services to low and middle income countries to reduce poverty. The Bank promotes growth to create jobs and to empower poor people to take advantage of these opportunities.

Another brief description appears in "10 Things You Never Knew About the World Bank:"

Our work in more than 100 countries is challenging, but our mission is simple–to reduce poverty. Over the last 20 years, our focus has changed, and so has our approach. We are now dealing with newer issues like gender, community-driven development and the rights and role of indigenous people in development. Our support for social services like health, nutrition, education and pensions has grown from 5 percent in 1980 to 22 percent in 2003. Today, countries themselves are coming to us with their own plans for helping poor people, and we have adopted new ways of working with them.

The World Bank's website also has a page that has a more detailed explanation of the organization, and here is part of it:

Not a bank, but rather a specialized agency. The World Bank is not a “bank” in the common sense. It is one of the United Nations’ specialized agencies, and is made up of 184 member countries. These countries are jointly responsible for how the institution is financed and how its money is spent. Along with the rest of the development community, the World Bank centers its efforts on reaching the Millennium Development Goals, agreed to by UN members in 2000 and aimed at sustainable poverty reduction.

The "World Bank" is the name that has come to be used for the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Together these organizations provide low-interest loans, interest-free credit, and grants to developing countries.

Some 10,000 development professionals from nearly every country in the world work in the World Bank's Washington DC headquarters or in its 109 country offices.

(emphasis added).

What does the World Bank president do?

In case you are wondering why Bush got to appoint Wolfowitless to this position, the United States traditionally appoints the president of the World Bank while Europe selects the leader of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

This BBC article gives a description of the World Bank president's job:

Think of him as a company chief executive.

He is responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation, overseeing the bank's six regions and managing global operations.

As top dog, the president ensures the smooth running of the World Bank, making sure that everyone in the organisation knows the direction it is headed.

The president also liaises with world leaders, looking at ways of cutting poverty and improving conditions, but is forbidden by the bank's charter from taking a political stance.

As well as operational responsibilities, a bank president has a key role as a representative of the world's poorest people.

Through lobbying and speeches, the president is able to draw attention to the problems faced by developing nations such as unfair trade conditions and crippling debt repayments.

A president is responsible for the strategy and flavour of the World Bank.

Wolfowitless is a bad choice--unless the Bush agenda is good.

• And just why is Wolfowitless qualified for this job?
  

At first glance, it is hard to see how Wolfowitless is at all qualified to lead the World Bank. He has served in the Department of Defense in three administrations, and has no apparent financial, economic, or diplomatic expertise. Compare this with his predecessor, James Wolfensohn, who has a Harvard MBA and had extensive experience as an investment on Wall Street and in London prior to heading the World Bank. However, Wolfowitless's official DoD biography shows some relevant experience:

During the Reagan administration, Dr. Wolfowitz served for three years as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia - the fourth largest country in the world and the largest in the Moslem world. There he earned a reputation as a highly popular and effective Ambassador, a tough negotiator on behalf of American intellectual property owners, and a public advocate of political openness and democratic values. During his tenure, Embassy Jakarta was cited as one of the four best-managed embassies inspected in 1988.

Prior to that posting, he served three and a half years as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, where he was in charge of U.S. relations with more than twenty countries. In addition to contributing to substantial improvements in U.S. relations with Japan and China, Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz played a central role in coordinating the U.S. policy toward the Philippines that supported a peaceful transition from the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos to democracy.

Even if one accepts without further investigation that Wolfowitless is thus qualified to be World Bank president, he is still a bad choice because of "the Bush agenda."

• Wolfowitless's probable "strategy and flavour"
  

When Bush first appointed Wolfowitless to the World Bank, the major problem was described in a March 17, 2005, article from The Financial Times:

On Wednesday Jeffrey Sachs, special adviser to Kofi Annan, U.N. secretary-general, and one of the world's foremost development experts, said: "It's a very surprising and in many ways inappropriate nomination. International aid organizations warned that the World Bank needed to maintain its mission to minimize poverty, rather than reframe its purpose to spread liberty in an effort to combat Islamic militancy."

Despite Wolfowitless's recent words to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that Sachs's view is incorrect. Remember that Wolfowitz wrote the blueprint for the Neocon philosophy--which has become the Bush Doctrine. That philosophy--as shown above--matches the concern expressed by Sachs, especially in light of Bush's bold pronouncements in his last State of the Union Address (see America's new calling, An update on "America's calling," Political buffoonery, and the three subsequent posts for discussions about that speech). Paul Reynolds of the BBC opened an article with another description of the primary concern for many people:

By nominating Paul Wolfowitz to be head of the World Bank, President George Bush appears to be sending a message to the world that he intends to spread into development policy the same neo-conservative philosophy that has led his foreign policy.

The problem is that Bush's foreign policy has been a cluster intercourse. For those of you who don't think so, first go get some really strong coffee so you can wake up and face reality. Secondly, take a look at the centerpiece of that foreign policy, Iraq, and Wolfowitless's role therein.

• A second look at Wolfowitless's record: Iraq
  

Wolfowitless wanted to use the U.S. military to get rid of Saddam long before George W. Bush became President. He co-authored a December 1, 1997, Weekly Standard article about Iraq entitled "Overthrow Him." As this excerpt shows, Wolfowitz was then advocating that Iraqis stage a coup, and that "What is needed is the assurance of economic, military, and political support of those Iraqis prepared to take charge of their own future..." In September 1998, Wolfowitless went before Congress, and his prepared statement included the following:

A strategy for supporting this enormous latent opposition to Saddam requires political and economic as well as military components. It is eminently possible for a country that possesses the overwhelming power that the United States has in the Gulf. The heart of such action would be to create a liberated zone in Southern Iraq comparable to what the United States and its partners did so successfully in the North in 1991.

*******

This would be a formidable undertaking, and certainly not one which will work if we insist on maintaining the unity of the UN Security Council.

So, while in 1998 Wolfowitless was not advocating a full U.S. invasion of Iraq, he was advocating a U.S. military takeover of southern Iraq, AND he was saying that we should do so without Security Council approval. That's called unilateral military action, folks.

Fast forward to September 15-16, 2001. Bush summoned all the relevant players to Camp David for a major meeting. As reported by the 9-11 Commission, Wolfowitless wanted to attack Iraq right then. This paragraph from the Commission's report is particularly telling:

Secretary Powell recalled that Wolfowitz--not Rumsfeld--argued that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked. Powell said that Wolfowitz was not able to justify his belief that Iraq was behind 9/11. "Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with," Powell told us. "And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem." Powell said that President Bush did not give Wolfowitz's argument "much weight." Though continuing to worry about Iraq in the following week, Powell said, President Bush saw Afghanistan as the priority.

(emphasis added). The Commission also detailed how Wolfowitless continued to press for an invasion of Iraq:

Writing to Rumsfeld on September 17 in a memo headlined "Preventing More Events," he argued that if there was even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were "far more" than 1 in 10, citing Saddam's praise for the attack, his long record of involvement in terrorism, and theories that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent and Iraq was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center.

Of course, we now know that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 (and actually we knew that before the war), and Wolfowitz was pretty much alone in calling for an Iraq invasion at that time. At that time, Bush had not adopted Wolfowitless's view, but, as Richard Perle told Vanity Fair for the May 2004 article "The Path to War," Wolfowitless had planted a seed.

An online article entitled "Paul Wolfowitz and the Neoconservative Movement" has this nice little summary of Wolfowitz and Iraq:

While Wolfowitz’s role in bring about the war to attack Iraq is obvious, one is left to question whether his influence was beneficial. Wolfowitz appears to have been so singularly obsessed with Iraq and bringing democracy there that he appears to have been out of touch with reality. His actions can be criticized from three different angles: that his whole plan to attack Iraq was unwise, he was willing to use dishonesty to reach his ideological ends, and his blind adherence to neoconservative ideology led to insufficient planning for post-war Iraq.

For those of you who think there was sufficient planning for post-war Iraq, first skip the regular coffee and head straight for a double espresso. Secondly, go to this link and check out all the links listed therein. Then read the next section, which puts Wolfowitless's obsession in perspective.

• "The Black Knight always triumphs!"
  

The preceding quote is from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." The Black Knight guards a bridge and does not allow anyone to pass. Anyone who tries is killed in combat by the Black Knight--until King Arthur comes to the bridge. Arthur proceeds to hack off the Black Knight's arms and one of his legs. Insisting that he has not lost the fight, the Black Knight proclaims "I'm invincible!" and "The Black Knight always triumphs!" in spite of the bloody obvious fact that he is beaten.

"Paul Wolfowitz and the Neoconservative Movement" provides the first part of this section's analysis:

It would appear that Wolfowitz was overly confident in his neoconservative ideology which predicted that American military might could spread the values of democracy.

*******

Unfortunately, Wolfowitz put his faith in his ideology instead of doing his homework. As a result, the security situation in Iraq has been compromised[.]...Furthermore, the inability to comprehend the necessity of a long-term commitment to Iraq has resulted in a military that is stretched for manpower and recently had to increase its size by 30,000 in order to meet its worldwide commitments. If Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, one of the five members of the war’s planning group, had seriously looked into the required force needed for post-Saddam Iraq, he might have prevented the loss of many coalition and Iraqi lives as well as a host of political problems for the coalition. While others undoubtedly made the same mistake as Wolfowitz, much of the responsibility falls on his shoulders because he was one of the most prominent promoters of going to war in the first place. In addition, Wolfowitz has subverted facts to ideology on other issues such as national missile defense, which has extremely high monetary and political costs and may not even be scientifically feasible.

I agree with almost everything in this excerpt. The one exception is that much of the responsibility falls not on Wolfowitless, but on Bush and Rumskull because official doctrine gives them that responsibility (see Official campaign planning doctrine and the post-war period). Still, the point about Wolfowitless placing emphasis on ideology and ignoring facts and reality is well taken. One of the things that has always amazed me about Wolfowitless is his arrogance. His record in this Bush administration makes me think the man is downright stupid, and his arrogance just makes him seem even less intelligent.

So where does this overconfidence/obsession/stupidity/arrogance come from? Relying in part on James Mann's book, The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet, Timothy Noah put forth a theory in Slate on March 29, 2004.

Wolfowitz was corrupted by early success. Twenty-odd years ago, Wolfowitz took two very lonely positions that proved to be spectacularly right. As a consequence, he developed an unshakable belief that once he's thought through a problem (which, according to Mann, Wolfowitz does very slowly) he should ignore the cavils of lesser minds. Time will prove that he's right.

*******

To Mann, Wolfowitz's early ideas about Iraq and China contributed to Wolfowitz's eventual advocacy of unilateral American power around the world. But Chatterbox thinks they may also have given Wolfowitz too much confidence in his ability to render risky judgments. Wolfowitz was not yet 40 when he staked out these positions. Within the foreign policy establishment, that made him a baby. Now he's a "wise man" of 60, drawing on the lessons of his youth to address new foreign policy challenges. And the main lesson is: The Wolf Man is Never Wrong.

Right...just ask him, and that is what he will tell you--even when the facts are otherwise.

• If not a unilateralist, then what?
  

In an interview with Newsweek, Wolfowitless was told that "the worry is that the bank will become a more unilateral American organization," and here was his response:

I think as they talk to me they get a little less worried, and I think they will understand that, contrary to reputation, I'm not a unilateralist.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is the same man whose basic political philosophy is that the United States must be the sole superpower and must be willing to use our military might--even if we cannot get other nations to join us--to establish a new world order that deters all other nations from so much as aspiring to greater roles globally and even on a regional basis.

So if Wolfowitless is not a unilateralist, what is he? I say he seems like an imperialist. An "imperialist" is a believer in imperialism, and "imperialism" is "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."

And what does this have to do with his new job as World Bank president? Previously, I mentioned that the concern expressed by Jeffrey Sachs and that such concern was particularly relevant in light of the Burning Bush doctrine presented in Bush's last State of the Union Address. With that in mind, let's look at some more of the Newsweek interview.

Newsweek: A lot of people always thought of you staying in Washington and being in the cabinet rather than going off into the World Bank.

Wolfowitz: I think this is an incredibly important job. And I think in terms of the president's goal and all of our goal of expanding the realm of freedom in the world, there's both a political dimension and an economic dimension and they're not tightly linked, but they support one another.

Newsweek: Your opponents say you are going to use the bank to pursue the Bush administration's philosophy of pushing democracy all around the world.

Wolfowitz: No, but I think when the bank performs its mission, which is reducing poverty and promoting economic development, it makes it more possible for people around the world to achieve their own goals of freedom and democracy.

(emphasis added). Wolfowitz is now in a position to directly affect how economic development around the world takes place, and even though he says he is not going to pursue the Burning Bush doctrine, the rest of his words show otherwise.

• There is no reason to think Wolfowitless will change.
  

Wolfowitless thought he was smarter than everyone in 1992 when he wrote "Defense Planning Guidance," and instead of everyone telling him so, his work was soundly rejected. Then along came George W. Bush, and Wolfowitless's long held ideology seemed to have been vindicated. One might think that the reality of Iraq--and Wolfowitless's errors--would humble him even a bit, but, alas, that is not the case.

On March 18, 2004, Wolfowitz was interviewed by Jim Lehrer. There are three remarkable aspects to this interview. First, he refused to admit that he was wrong about anything regarding Iraq. Second, he refused to take any responsibility for all the unsubstantiated bullshit he spouted before the war. Instead, he generally blamed the intelligence. Regarding his ridiculously arrogant dismissal of Shinseki's post-war troop estimates, Wolfowitz gave the lame excuse that "My biggest concern was, and I think he knew it, that General Franks was the combatant commander," and Wolfowitless thought it was wrong for anyone other than the combatant commander to make an estimate. Never mind that Shinseki gave his estimate in answer to a specific, direct question from a Congressman. The third remarkable thing about the interview is that it showed that Wolfowitless was still sticking to his core political philosophy. When asked whether he had any personal doubts about whether invading Iraq was the right thing to do, he gave this answer: "No, I don't. I think it's a huge victory. I think 25 million of some of the most talented people in the Muslim and Arab world have been liberated from one of the worst tyrannies of the last 100 years." As stated in "Paul Wolfowitz and the Neoconservative Movement,"

His frequent emphasis of this point throughout the interview leads one to think that bringing democracy to Iraq was his real reason for war all along. Therefore, it would appear that Wolfowitz’s consistent agitation for war against Iraq was consistent with his long held neoconservative beliefs.

In other words, even one year after the invasion of Iraq, Wolfowitz had not changed.

Now I know what some of you are thinking. That interview was over a year ago. Who's to say that Wolfowitless has not changed since then? Well, ol' Wolfowitless his ownself, that's who. The Newsweek interview referenced above was published on April 4 of this year. The excerpts in the previous section show that he has not changed his basic philosophy. The following excerpts show that he is still not admitting mistakes or taking any responsibility:

Newsweek: Do you take responsibility for any mistakes made in planning for the war in Iraq, and what do you see as the key mistakes? Dissolving the Army?

Wolfowitz: There's so much finger-pointing that goes on. It's a long exercise to dissect all the things that are wrong [in what has been] said about why this has proven to be difficult. And the notion that there was no planning is simply wrong.

Notice that Wolfowitless not only refused to really answer the question, he also tried to change the subject to planning.

Newsweek: You mean that there was planning for the aftermath?

Wolfowitz: The usual phrase is, there was no planning for the post-conflict phase. And the real problem is that the conflict hasn't ended and that there is an enemy still out there actively trying to prevent the emergence of a new Iraq. But on Jan. 30 [Iraq's Election Day], they were handed a stunning defeat by the Iraqi people, whom they attempted to intimidate. I think people shouldn't have been surprised that a regime that had burrowed into Iraqi society over 35 years and killed and tortured and intimidated people so effectively didn't quit just because they were driven out of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.

(emphasis added). First, he said there was planning, then he failed to describe that planning. Instead, he tried to say there can be no complaint that there was no post-conflict planning because we have yet to get to a post-conflict state. This isn't just bullshit--this is bad bullshit. This is not the first time Wolfowitless has tried using strained semantics (see Wolfowitz's Reason 3 why Shinseki was wrong). All his talk about elections, a regime that did not just quit, etc., does not say one damn thing about not having more troops, not securing the borders, not supplying food and water, etc. The interviewer made one last attempt to get a straight answer out of Wolfowitless.

Newsweek: But do you think there were mistakes? We said we were going in to get weapons of mass destruction but there were no weapons of mass destruction, so there were obvious mistakes, right?

Wolfowitz: And there were some great successes as well. And I think if people want to go through this exercise, they ought to first do an assessment and put the pluses up there with the minuses. And if the purpose is to learn lessons so that we can finish winning this war, I would say focus on why it is that the people who abused and tortured that country for 35 years have proven to be so resilient. That's where the problem lies.

He already answered the question to his "focus" by pointing out that the regime had been in power 35 years was not going to just quit, and yet he raised this "focus" instead of answering the question. Pointing out the successes does not minimize or explain or take responsibility for all the major mistakes that were made--and that includes the horrific lack of planning.

And by the way, Tommy Franks--the combatant commander Wolfowitless wanted to protect and respect--detailed in his book that horrific lack of planning (see Franks on planning for the post-war period).

This section shows that Wolfowitless is still adhering to his ideology--even in the face of reality, refuses to admit any error, refuses to take responsibility, and keeps stating positions that are flat out wrong. There is nothing to indicate that he is ever going to change his ways. And that is precisely why Bush appointed him to be president of the World Bank.

• Wolfowitless's job will be to push Bush policy.
  

Based on the foregoing, I conclude that Wolfowitless's prime objective at the World Bank is indeed "to pursue the Bush administration's philosophy of pushing democracy all around the world." Wolfowitless provided the basis for that foreign policy, has adhered to it to the point of delusion, refuses to take responsibility for his own errors, blames others, says one thing and then acts to the contrary, etc. In other words, he is the epitome of a Bush administration official. Does anyone really think that Bush would appoint anyone to any office if that person was not going to be completely loyal and follow Bush's plans and desires? If so, just skip the coffee and espresso and come see me because I have some beachfront property here in North Texas that I will sell to you for a bargain.

Bush's plan is the Burning Bush doctrine--freedom is on the march, planting the flag of liberty, and all that jazz. Wolfowitless has already said that the World Bank has a role in that and that if the World Bank performs its mission, it will help spread democracy.

And now Wolfowitless is in a position to try to apply the Bush desires to developing the world economy. This is not a good thing. See, the Bush administration's vision of spreading democracy is not obtainable. I have discussed this in America's new calling, An update on America's calling, Political buffoonery, and Freedom is on the march--or is it?, but I will state four basic reasons why Bush's vision is at best blurred. The first is that we cannot spread liberty and democracy without the help of other nations. The second reason is that the Bush foreign policy SOP is to try to make every country do only what we want and on our terms, and that makes it difficult if not impossible to get other countries to help. The third reason is that the core neocon philosophy is that the U.S. must preserve its own superpower status and not allow any country to gain any more power and influence, and that philosophy doesn't exactly engender good will and cooperation. The fourth reason is that the Bush administration is not really interested in spreading democracy unless it is U.S.-style democracy over which we have influence and control. That just is not feasible. We do not have the resources to pull that off all over the world, especially without massive help from other countries. Wolfowitless has proved that he will unwaveringly follow ideology at all costs, and that is not a good thing for the World Bank--and for the world--when his philosophy and the Bush administration's goals are so impractical.

And that's why Wolfowitless is a bad choice for World Bank president.