I find myself in dire need of some good old fashioned cynical explanations.

Can someone tell me:

- How is that guy qualified for the job?
- Well, what is the job about? By that, I mean what it's really about, not the humanitarian fairy tale.
- How can a "controversial" candidate, as the press liked to call him, manage to secure the vote of almost every country on earth? Just what kind of negociations are going on over there?
- Again, what is the prize? Why put a neocon brass there? What's in it for him, for the US, for the world?

Whaddya think?

Well it is kind of a custom for the world bank leader to be an American and he is nominated by the US and the Bush regime chose Wolfowitz. I'm not sure if he's qualified but it would be quite a big slap on the face if EU would start objecting the US nomination. I'm not all too familiar with Wolfowitz and about him being qualified for the job so I'm going to leave speculating that for others who know better. ;)

I read about this a while ago and was surprised that no-one mentioned it. I am really surprised at Europe for backing him.

He was in charge of rebuilding Iraq I believe. I am sure he will be great for the USA, not sure about any other country though...

Actually, he was one of the main architects of the war in Iraq. As for why he got European backing, I read a lengthy explanation, but I can't really recall the details. But basically it's all down to politics (of course). Nothing to gain by not backing him, along those lines.

Hm. Yesterday I heard that the EU does have something to gain backing the neocon trash this time. By supporting him it will be far more likely for a European to become Vize President, assuring the EU some measure of influence on and control over Wolfowitz. Or so it was explained.

Damage control in an opportunistic sort of way.

I would have preferred the EU to deftly backstab him just for the hell of it. Cant have it all though.

As I allready stated it has been custom for the US regime to appoint the chariman of the World bank. It would create a lot of chaos within the bank and between the relations of US and EU if we would object. They get to nominate chairman of the World bank and we in turn get to nominate the chariman of the International Monetary Fund. It's politics and if we would object Wolfowitz we would destroy this arangement and send the two organizations into a political chaos. Something neither the EU or the US would benefit from.

Yep. Considered to that Wolfowitz is the lesser evil.

It is frustrating though. As someone else has said (http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news4/lind-catastrophic-success.html), Wolfowitz is perfectly incompetent. He is the Mozart of ineptitude, the Einstein of incapacity. To be sure, he has his virtues, the foremost of which is consistency.

He has been consistently wrong about foreign policy for 30 years.

In the 1970s and 1980s, as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger and "Team B," Wolfowitz and his allies, such as Richard Perle, argued that the decrepit Soviet Union was vastly more powerful than the CIA claimed it was. After the Soviet Union dissolved, it turned out that the CIA had exaggerated Soviet strength.

Wrong about geopolitics in general, Wolfowitz has been wrong about Iraq in particular.

Forget the awkward absence of weapons of mass destruction or the zero links between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Reality is as the Bush administration defines it.

After kicking out Gen. Shinseki for correctly stating that planned troop levels for Iraq were insufficient, Wolfowitz forecasted a jubilant welcome for the American invaders and that those Iraqi oil revenues would more than pay for the costs of war and reconstruction.

My favorite Wolfowitz utterance came when he was winding up his first visit to conquered Iraq in July 2003. "Foreigners," he told reporters, "should stay out of Iraq." (Duh.)

In a sense you can say: He's so embarassingly incompetent he has to be promoted to dispell the concerns of incompetence - because he would't be promoted if he was incompetent. Well, in a perfect world.

Make him president of the World Bank. Not only are you not admitting a mistake, you're daring the American public to think otherwise.

Cheers :beer:

Matthew Yglesias had the best lines in my opinion:

It's a fitting gig for a disgraced former Pentagon official, though I suppose it'll lead to a diplomatic contretemps. I'm going to stake out a radically moderate view on this and say that I'd like to actually know something about Wolfowitz's views on what the World Bank does before offering judgment. Preventative wars are not, I take it, something the Bank head is able to launch.
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/03/wolfowitz_to_wo.html

The questions is actually wether he really is the black & white ideological hack I believe him to be, or able to become a good, that is neutral, leader of the world bank without an agenda to promote, what I seriously doubt.

That he isn't going to start wars anymore is really beside the point and misleading.

I give him the credit that he's smart and probably honest in all the nonsense he utters, but that's about it.

He could still play politics by giving aid only to those countries the US want to reward and deny it those who dare to disobey.

The Worldbank is about development aid after all, and not about neoconservative geopolitics games.

How about that: Country X needs aid, but has a too socialist regime. Country Y would like a credit to develop it's oil fields, but dared to choose a russian or french contractor and uses the Euro standard for oil sales. Country Z doesn't like the permanent US interference with it's politics and needs a credit.

By denying credits he could make 'pre-emptive economical strangulation' for countries the neocons don't like. That could well be about as devastating as bombing the country.

That is, Wolfie doesn't necessarily need to sit in the Pentagon to cause trouble, doom and devastation.

Just imagine what kind of social litmus tests the neocons can get him to apply. Now they have a worldwide stage for refusing aid to countries that provide condoms to poor women, for example. :rolleyes:

So I guess Bono never had a real chance, then? ;)

A Sheep in Wolves Clothing - Why Wolfowitz may be a Good Choice to Run the World Bank (http://slate.msn.com/id/2114929/)

Rally, one of the founders of neo-conservatism described a neo-conservative as "a liberal who was mugged by reality." I bring this up only because I think you're attributing social views to neo-conservatives that I don't think they hold. Neo-conservative =!= socially right. Wikipedia has a good brief little description of 'em.

I personally don't have a strong opinion whether Wolfowitz will do a good job. I've just been reading about it from WaPo and others and it looks like there are two views on the thing. One of them is well represented in the thread. The other view is similar to the slate article linked above. I don't know which view is right and, to be honest, nobody does really know at this time and probably won't for a few years.

Your mileage may vary.

Economics minister Joseph Deiss says Switzerland will support the controversial United States nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to take over as head of the World Bank.

After a meeting in Brussels on Wednesday with other European ministers and Wolfowitz, Deiss said he had "a very good feeling" about the nomination

Deiss spoke of his "very good impression" after answers Wolfowitz gave to numerous questions asked by the European ministers.

He said he had insisted on two main points multilateralism and work with partners such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Deiss added that he had received satisfactory replies, with Wolfowitz saying he was prepared to take on the role of a "civil servant" in the service of an international institution often criticised by the US.

He was also willing to try to build a climate of confidence with NGOs.
link (http://www.nzzamsonntag.ch/2005/03/30/eng/article5640788.html) He has the support of Deiss, who's my favourite council. So, I think Wolfowitz may be a good choice.

Found an article about who is to replace Wolfie at Pentagon, with a brief comment on Wolfowitz himself (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ca5514fa-a23f-11d9-8483-00000e2511c8.html). Whereas Mr Wolfowitz cut a controversial figure on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers questioned his planning for the war in Iraq, Mr England is well respected among lawmakers.

Mr Wolfowitz also earned a reputation as a poor manager, although his supporters say Mr Rumsfeld asked him to concentrate on policy and strategy issues, rather than the more traditional management role usually filled by the deputy.It's certainly easier to be the one to point and reiterate the neocon mantras: "Evil! Go get it!" and "We need a missile shield" and "Pre-emptive action galore" or "Oh glory! We'll be greeted with flowers for bringing Liberty!", especially when compared to manage something as complex as the pentagon.

Maybe I'm really painting things bleak and gloomy. But then, Bush and his goons have never disappointed me in exceeding my worst expectations.

:shake: So, a poor manager at the top post of the World Bank? Hah, if, details schmetails, the job get's to complicated Wolfie focuses on policy again: "Aah, evil! Go get it!" :shake:

I thought the Economist's take on it was rather interesting. Essentially, it thought it was more than likely that if he got the job, he'd become a more edumacated neo-con (read: a good influence on other American neo-cons).