Leopards and Spots
So Paul Wolfowitz is out at as head of the World Bank. Some will argue that it was his fight against corruption at the bank, and that he was just deeply unpopular as the architect of the Iraq war, rather than his own self-serving actions that caused the ouster.
Actually, as a liberal, I do have some sympathy for the argument that he was ousted for fighting corrupting in the bank. Think back to the globalization debate that started in the late 1990s -- we lefties have always found the World Bank to be a corrupt institution.
, conservative enough to be sympathetic to Wolfowitz, lays it out very well, I think.http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
when they say that "Instead of formulating a plan, selling it to the bank's board, customers and officers, and then acting on it, Mr Wolfowitz acted first, and had a strategy thrust on him later."
Well, that does seem familiar now, doesn't it? Couldn't it be said that Wolfowitz treated Iraq the same way? Read that quotation again (slightly altered):
"Instead of formulating a plan, selling it to the US Intelligence community, US military and citizens, and then acting on it, Mr Wolfowitz acted first, and had a strategy thrust on him later."
Do I believe that the World Bank is corrupt? Yep. Did I believe that Saddam Hussein was corrupt? Yep. Did Paul Wolfowitz deal with both situations by charging in withouth a stragety? The Economist admits it... Yep.