Wolfowitz about to be fired by World Bank

This is an interesting story primarily for the sense of entitlement these Republicans have. Paul Wolfowitz was a deputy Secretary of Defense to Don Rumsfeld, and probably the smartest and best educated of the NeoCons pushing for the war in Iraq. He is considered the primary architect of Bush's foreign policy, particularly the the unilateral aspects of it in which America acts no matter what any other nation thinks. Wolfowitz has a reputation as a hawk's hawk. He was also the principle architect of the strategy for the invasion of Iraq:

Wolfowitz’s strategy for the invasion of Iraq [which] “envisaged the use of air support and the occupation of southern Iraq with ground troops, to install a new government run by Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress.” Wolfowitz believed the operation would require minimal troop deployment because, as Hersh clarifies, “any show of force would immediately trigger a revolt against Saddam within Iraq, and that it would quickly expand.” The financial expenditure would be kept low because, as Kampfner explains, “under the plan American troops would seize the oil fields around Basra, in the South, and sell the oil to finance the opposition.”

Then, in January 2005 just after Bush was reelected he nominated Wolfowitz to be the new President of the World Bank. The Board of the World Bank, as is normal, accepted the nomination by the President of the U.S. and Wolfowitz took over.

It has recently come to light that Wolfowitz has had a long-time relationship with a senior World Bank employee, Shaha Riza. The relationship threw up red flags, and to resolve it Ms. Riza was seconded to the U.S. Treasury with a promotion and a large raise in pay. The promotion and pay raise were outside normal World Bank rules. When an inquiry into the situation established that there were significant differences between what Wolfowitz had told World Bank officials and what had actually been done, Mr. Wolfowitz was asked to resign. This question now resides with the Bank's Executive Directors, and everyone is waiting to see what they will do.

It doesn't help that Wolfowitz has disagreed with the World Bank staff regarding how to alleviate poverty in the third world nations, and has a reputation for not listening to his subordinates. This is the kind of situation in which a manager is most likely to be fired.

The problem seems to be in part that Wolfowitz believed his own press clippings and since he was in charge, saw no reason to listen to his subordinates. I doubt that military men who worked for him in the Pentagon would be at all surprised at this. The other part, in my opinion, is that there is a general belief among Republican conservatives that the boss at the top is not subject to the rules or laws that apply to his subordinates.

The first problem is a personal one that belongs to Paul Wolfowitz as a person. Since I am not his therapist or his Rabbi, that is none of my business. The second problem is, however, endemic to the current crop of conservative leaders, and is a cultural problem. It is a violation of English common law and of the general Rule of Law. This is the attitude of a tyrant who believes in Rule by Law, in which the tyrant is above the laws that apply to his subordinates. Both Bush and Cheney have this belief.

For a more complete discussion, go to my post Rule of Law vs. Arbitrary Command.. Paul Wolfowitz is about to lose his job at the World Bank because he does not understand how he should function in a world that believes in the "Rule of Law." we can hope that whoever replaces him is not a similarly self-absorbed poor manager.