Wolfowitz and the why question

Thinks look very bleak for Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank. His involvement in the financial and career arrangements made for his girlfriend seem likely to cost him his job.

One question screams out from the stories of his conduct - why?

Why on earth would an intelligent man conduct himself in a way that was clearly against the spirit and probably the letter of the Bank's rules? How could a man running an anti-corruption drive and making internal enemies along the way, not realise that his actions regarding his girlfriend were suicidal?

Usually such improper behaviour occurs because the relationship is secret, and often the institutional abuse is designed to help maintain the secrecy.

But not in this case.

If you want an answer to the why question, try reading John Cassidy's profile of Wolfowitz in last week's New Yorker.

He paints a picture of a passionate intellectual but also an unworldly individual with holes in his socks. Bureaucratic formality was of no interest to him and his relationship with the formal part of the Bank and senior staff has soured because he acted without consulting them.

The parallel with the Iraq war thinking is interesting - the intellectual and moral case for action strikes Wolfowitz strongly, the practicalities and the coalition building get left behind.

Comments

[John B.]

"Intelligent man"? "Passionate intellectual"? "Unworldly"? Nonsense.

Wolfowitz and his neocon buddies are nowhere near as smart as they would have you believe. Just so full of themselves and so arrogant that they think anything they do is immune to questioning by mere mortals.

[Islington Neil]

It couldn't happen to nicer chap. Now all I need to hear is that Don Rumsfeld has had a nasty accident chopping logs back on the farm.

'Sockgate' passed me by, but I'll always remember the reaction from the cinema audience at clip (in Michael Moore F 9/11) when he spits into his combe and runs it through his hair prior to a TV interview. Urrggghh.