Why Wolfowitz? 



Just read a very good Salon Article on "Why Wolfowitz ?"

As usual, I'm a few days behind on world news. But this one is surprising to me. (Or not surprising, if I get cynical.)

I worked at the World Bank many eons ago in the lowest possible position one could have - that of a "staff assistant." A grad school degree was not required for this glorified secretary position, but strangely enough, many of us had one.

There is plenty wrong with the World Bank. Many of their projects are environmental time bombs. There's colossal mismanagement on so many levels. The right and the left hand don't talk well to each other.

But one thing I noticed during my years there was that 99.9% of the Bank employees were passionate about international development. Passionate about abolishing world poverty. Passionate about making sure everyone had safe drinking water and a place to live and food to eat.

Wolfowitz just doesn't seem to share that passion. Now, he seems very good at what he does. I don't always agree with him, but I do respect his knowledge and obvious capability. He has had a long, successful career in military strategy and other diplomatic posts.

But can you manage a huge organization of extremely committed, passionate people if your interests lie elsewhere? Poverty won't be abolished in a military campaign or a negotiated truce. It takes heart and soul and a lot of people with vision and great big hearts working together, surpassing national boundaries and military differences.

Is he the right man for that task? Me, I don't think so. I would have nominated the Clintons. Both of them as a team. (Get Bill out of the country's hair and keep Hillary from running in 2008.) With his empathy and passion and her brain and ability to get things done, I bet they could turn that place around. And he'd fit right in with the corporate culture. All those Italian men made working conditions, well, interesting.... 

Posted: Thu - March 17, 2005 at 06:51 PM          

©