Thursday, March 17, 2005
In Boston, thinking about the Wolfowitz nomination
Unfortunately, before I climbed into bed I stupidly thought to look at Thursday's New York Times, which has just gone up on its web site. Not surprisingly, it is running an editorial denouncing the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to run the World Bank. It is, however, astonishingly churlish, even by the standards of the Times.
When asked why he had nominated Paul Wolfowitz, a chief architect of the Iraq invasion, as the next president of the World Bank, President Bush repeatedly pointed out that as deputy defense secretary, Mr. Wolfowitz had managed a large organization. Even he seemed slightly flummoxed about why a job that is all about international cooperation should go to a man whose work has so outraged many of the nations with which he will be expected to work.
Even those who supported the goals of the invasion must remember Mr. Wolfowitz's scathing contempt for estimates that the occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops, and his serene conviction that American soldiers would be greeted with flowers. Like the nomination of John Bolton as United Nations ambassador, the choice of Mr. Wolfowitz is a slap at the international community, which widely deplored the invasion and the snubbing of the United Nations that accompanied it.
By the argument of the Times, the promotion of people who supported, advocated for and enabled American foreign policy in the Middle East -- however successful that policy might turn out to be -- is "a slap at the international community." Not merely a slap at countries that opposed our policies (who may well deserve a slap), but a slap at the "international community." Since supporters of the war are apparently ipso facto offensive to the "international community," one is almost compelled to conclude that The New York Times believes that Bush should appoint people who opposed American policy in the Middle East. Appointing opponents of the Iraq war would, after all, signal contrition in diplomatic circles, which is precisely the posture the editors wish America would assume.
There is no question that John Bolton is a bit rough around the edges, and that he may not turn out to be constructive at the United Nations (although I think he will be great). There is nothing about Paul Wolfowitz, though, that is inherently offensive. He is an extremely accomplished diplomat and a gifted intellectual who speaks with soft tones and nuanced language. He is, however, a Jewish hawk, and for that reason alone he gets terrible press. The European press is almost obsessive in its coverage of him -- certainly more Europeans know who he is than Americans -- in some cases to the point of shallow antisemitism. Hitchens, almost two years ago:
"Yes that's all very well," said the chap from the BBC World Service, "but what about this man Vulfervitz who seems to run the whole show from behind the scenes?" For the fifth time in as many days, and for the umpteenth time this year, I corrected a British interviewer's pronunciation. You see the name in print, you hear it uttered quite a lot in American discussions, you then give a highly inflected rendition of your own. ... What is this? In my young day, the BBC had a special department for the pronunciation of foreign names for the guidance of those commenting on Thailand, say, or Mongolia. But this particular name is pronounced as it is spelled. "Very well," said the BBC chap, with a hint of bad grace. "This man Wolfervitz ..."
It takes a lot, I hope, to make me feel queasy. (I had, during my appointment at the BBC offices in London, already had to pass a door with a sign reading "Male Prayer Room," which means that the British taxpayer is already funding not just religious observance on public property but the sexual segregation of same.) And this is not quite like old-line reactionaries going out of their way to say "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld." Still, I don't think I am quite wrong in suspecting that a sharpened innuendo is in play here. Why else, when the very name of Paul Wolfowitz is mentioned, do so many people bid adieu to the very notion of objectivity?
We know why much of the world despises the man, and it has nothing to do with his qualifications or even the policies that he advocates. If some people feel "slapped" by the appointment of such an accomplished person to the chairmanship of the World Bank, it is more a reflection on them than on the merits of the appointment. Perhaps we should hope such people feel slapped.
Oh. And don't underestimate how peeved the Times must be that its favorite candidate did not get the nod.
7 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 17, 12:08:00 PM:
A few quotes:
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: "They've worked at hiding things very, very deliberately. There's no question in my mind that there was something there. There are just too many pieces of evidence, and we'll get to the bottom of it." May 31, 2003.
Occupying Iraq: "The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." March 4, 2003.
Rebuilding Iraq: "There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." March 27, 2003.
The justification for attacking Iraq: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction..."
I question Wolfowitz's judgement, his willingness to adhere to international law, his willingness to be truthful, and his willingness to push for monetary policy that would further poor nations' independence (rather than dependence on the World Bank or the U.S.). He's also pro-war, and that stance is unsupportable from my Judeo-Christian values system.
Bush's nominations send a clear message that the U.S. will act unilaterally and violently in efforts to solve problems. The message is, "We're very dangerous, and we don't care what you say."
By Sluggo, at
Thu Mar 17, 12:36:00 PM:
It might seem small minded to take the Times' condemnation as an automatic signal that the right person has been nominated. I can't think of an instance where that hasn't been the case, though.
Bush's nominations do send a clear message. We'll fight for what we believe in and we'll use the best and most appropriate tools to do it.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 17, 01:26:00 PM:
Screwy - hey, it's me again responding to you in utter disagreement.
1) Even the NYT now admits that there were WMD production facilities in Iraq - dismantled during the war (wanna bet they're in Syria). Of course, while the NYT says it was "looted," in fact, it was dismantled and hidden away from us. We're the good guys. Saddam was the bad guy. Try to keep that in mind so you don't assist in the Democratic Party's suicide attempt.
2) On occupying Iraq. Wolfowitz it turns out was right. Erik Shinseki was wrong. Here maybe we can agree on something. The ARMY always wants more guys on the ground. ALWAYS. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld said NO to the ARMY. Do it with less guys. And it worked. Did you miss the elections? Had we had more guys on the ground, we'd have lost more guys, provided more targets, etc. To do what, guard the freakin' museum? I love it when people who are clueless of military matters opine. "Journalists."
Iraq rebuilding and capital - Iraq is now exporting over 2mm bbls per day. That's 700mm per year. At current price levels, Iraq is a VERY wealthy country. And they will double production in the next 3 years. They needed a bridge loan. We helped. And oh yes, they did get a big fat Saddam loan writeoff from the French and Russians, Saddam's bankers. Begrudgingly. In my opinion, we've made a brilliant investment which will pay back in spades for decades. Patience Screwy. Be an optimist. In the US, it always pays to be an optimist.
Rationale for Iraq attack: 1) Saddam's repudiation of 17 UN resolutions related to the 91 cease fire over a decade 2) the nexus of al qaeda with saddam (notice the nexus between saddam fedayeen and Zarqawi recently?). 3) risk of marrying WMD to point 2) above.
I'm all for it. 100% cool with me Screwy. Shoulda done it in 91 but GHWB didn't have the balls, and Baker and Scowcroft didn't give a hoot. Glad GWB is more like Mom.
Wolfowitz happens to be a brilliant diplomat. Brilliant. And war is a form of a diplomacy. You are not credible, esp in the Middle East, without the willingness and ability to use it. Our use of it was strategically and tactically brilliant. Unprecedented in world history in its scope of achievement relative to its minimization of loss of life. You may not like it...that is your prerogative. I am pleased you aren't in a position of responsibility. Voting is the only damage you can do. God Bless our Free Country. Something else we certainly can agree on.
I take it from your post ("Wolfowitz is pro war, etc") that you are a pacifist. I would point out that pacifism is not a Judeo Christian value. Not at any point in history. Ever. Remember the term Holy Roman Emperor from your history classes.
Furthermore, there is no such thing today as legitimate international laws. Legitimate laws arise from a popularly elected legislative body. Our Congress for instance. Makes laws for us. Nobody else's legislative body makes laws for us. If we didn't vote for 'em, they ain't makin' no laws fo me. Not even if Anthony Kennedy thinks they're cooler over in Paris than we are. He can move there and become a French citoyen.
We agree on something else. Bush's nominations send a clear message. The next part, we disagree on. We want to see an extension of democracy and freedom to some of the darkest, primeval places on the planet, so people oppressed in those places don't strike out at us. Now that, Screwy, is moral values expressed at the highest level. Guys like Wolfowitz and Bolton are committed to ensuring that we don't get distracted by nifty Parisian cocktail party lefty-ism and instead keep pushing the message.
In case you've missed it, it's working. Just ask some of those demonstrating Lebanese ladies.
By 
, at
Thu Mar 17, 05:11:00 PM:
The message is, "We're very dangerous, and we don't care what you say."
Didja ever think that, in a world where a lot of people celebrated 9-11 that such a message might be appropriate?
You ARE dangerous, and if someone mass murders your citizens, you DON'T care what others say. Well done, I say. May your lethality and concern for your citizens endure. If more countries were that way, there would be a lot more peace in the world.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 17, 08:16:00 PM:
The NYT agrees that there were WMD in Iraq? I'm guessing the NYT staff wouldn't agree with you, but the way the NYT gets bashed around here, I'd better leave them out of it.
You say there were WMD related thingamabobs in Iraq. Even GW downgraded to WMD related program activities. You also mention the 'nexus' b/w A.Q. and Saddam like it existed. If you're going to try that one, then you'd better link Rumsfeld to him too, because they had a closer relationship than any A.Q. operative did with Saddam.
Saddam was definitely a bad guy. And George W. Bush is a bad guy, too. He's managed to kill 34 World Trade Center Attacks worth of innocent Iraqis in an empty effort to... liberate the Iraqis? That's the latest reductionist excuse, but it doesn't fly when you consider that Bush planned to attack Iraq long before 9/11 and that he used 'liberation of the Iraqi people' as one of the bottom-of-the-list reasons to invade.
Being a liberal, patriotic American, I'm proud that our troops have made the best of a tragic situation and have tried their best to establish order.
I saw the elections. Yes. God knows. I hope the Iraqis are able to found a solid, stable, democratic form of government that won't end up turning against us in a decade or so. And I hope we let the Iraqis manage their own oil without U.S. corporate dominance.
Lastly, to assert that pacifism plays no part in Judeo-Christian values systems is as ignorant as the rest of your attitude is arrogant.
"Turn the other cheek"
"Love your enemy"
Go read your Jesus. He wasn't into the whole pre-emptive ideal.
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Mar 17, 08:19:00 PM:
The NYT agrees that there were WMD in Iraq? I'm guessing the NYT staff wouldn't agree with you, but the way the NYT gets bashed around here, I'd better leave them out of it.
You say there were WMD related thingamabobs in Iraq. Even GW downgraded to WMD related program activities. You also mention the 'nexus' b/w A.Q. and Saddam like it existed. If you're going to try that one, then you'd better link Rumsfeld to him too, because they had a closer relationship than any A.Q. operative did with Saddam.
Saddam was definitely a bad guy. And George W. Bush is a bad guy, too. He's managed to kill 34 World Trade Center Attacks worth of innocent Iraqis in an empty effort to... liberate the Iraqis? That's the latest reductionist excuse, but it doesn't fly when you consider that Bush planned to attack Iraq long before 9/11 and that he used 'liberation of the Iraqi people' as one of the bottom-of-the-list reasons to invade.
Being a liberal, patriotic American, I'm proud that our troops have made the best of a tragic situation and have tried their best to establish order.
I saw the elections. Yes. God knows. I hope the Iraqis are able to found a solid, stable, democratic form of government that won't end up turning against us in a decade or so. And I hope we let the Iraqis manage their own oil without U.S. corporate dominance.
Lastly, to assert that pacifism plays no part in Judeo-Christian values systems is as ignorant as the rest of your attitude is arrogant.
"Turn the other cheek"
"Love your enemy"
Go read your Jesus. He wasn't into the whole pre-emptive ideal.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Mar 18, 10:42:00 AM:
Thanks for responding Screwy. I was waiting.
Yes, the NYT reported that a WMD development site in Iraq had been "looted." It was a rather twisted way to make the acknowledgement and then accuse the administration of incompetence to allow the "looting." Christopher Hitchens has written an excellent piece in Slate pointing out that this wasn't "looting." It was organized dismantling by the bad guys. Likely Syrians in my opinion.
Yes, there were such thingamabobs, as yout put it. Ask the Kurds.
As to the nexus between Saddam and terrorists - highly reported during the Clinton administration even before the current administration. Iraqi intelligence first met AQ reps in Sudan. Housed Zarqawi, the lovely fellow chopping off heads in..where is it?..oh yes..IRAQ.
The entire "insurgency" (failed, btw) is a nexus between AQ and Saddam. Hello? Hello? Are you there?
Housed Abu Nidal. Paid off Palestinian suicide bomber families with oil or food money. Get over it. Saddam was a king of the terrorists. He was of the Arafat variety (secular, not islamist).
As to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, thanks for the reference. That is the basis for nonviolent resistance, and was beautifully reflected in Gandhi's resistance to British colonialism and administration of India, or ML King's resistance of Jim Crow in the US...or Roman occupation of Jerusalem, as a matter of fact. That should not be confused with Pacifism. Jesus's Sermon on the Mount is not a justification for allowing Tyrants like Saddam (or Milosevic) to oppress, torture and kill their people. That's, hwoever, exactly what pacifism allows and calls for. Tyrants like those fellows I mentioned before are bullies who will only be removed through violence. And the person with the will to do so is not a bad person.
I appreciate the fact that there are those who say harming a single innocent person to achieve the end described above preserves their morality, etc. Hokum. Utopian cowardice. We live in a fabulous country with extraordinary freedoms unprecedented in human history because of brave martial people, courageous and willful leadership. It is imperfect, but it's the best we've got. And we shouldn't be embarrassed to spread the freedom. We've done it throughout our history...with the notable exception of the Cold War, when we tolerated petty tyrants to confront the Soviets. Those days are over baby.
I will presume that since you didn't really touch my other commentary, you're actually ok with it. So no more on those.
My guess Screwy is that your blinded a bit by, either by partisanship, or philosophical pacifism, in your assessments. For instance, did you support Milosevic's removal which came as a consequence of our use of force in the Balkans? Did you support Persian Gulf War I? And if so, would you have supported Saddam's removal in 1991?
