Wolfowitz guarding the sheep

Fri Mar 18 11:49:14 2005 EDT (-0400 GMT)

The National Post has an article about why Paul Wolfowitz is such a poor choice for head of the World Bank. Off hand I can’t tell if it’s being passed off as an op/ed article, or if it’s categorized as general news — but does it matter with the National Post? I’m glad to read that the paper that wanted to see Canada in Iraq is questioning the the invasions’ chief architect’s analytical abilities, though the article is attributed to Fred Kaplan, of the former M$ property, www.slate.com.

The rational reasons why Paul Wolfowitz judgment cannot be trusted on anything:

  • He claimed: “It’s hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army.”
  • He also thought a post-war Iraq could fund it’s own recovery
  • He claimed that America’s troops would be welcomed to Iraq with flowers! (my favourite)
  • Lastly, as a senior member of the Pentagon (under secretary? – I don’t know the US positions that well) Where’s Osama?

The irrational reasons why Paul Wolfowitz should be head of the World Bank:

  • He talked to Bono twice yesterday. Twice! (He called him and Bono refuses to comment on it)
  • George Bush said that Wolfowitz qualifications are he’s a senior member of the Pentagon and the World Bank is an organization of a similar size

Not only is that like saying you should hire a lawyer as a surgeon because they’re both professionals with a lot of training, but it’s like saying you should hire a personnel injury lawyer as a surgeon. It’s the marriage of an irrational thought with an bad choice.

I’ve always said that I have trouble understanding the decisions George Bush makes, but perhaps it was better when he didn’t give his reasons.

Comments are closed.