Paul Wolfowitz?

Update on 3/18: I was surprised to learn of Barnett's endorsement of Wolfowitz. Clearly, he knows and understands such matters infinately better than myself. He knows Wolfowitz's history and capabilities. I had thought that he would have been against this nomination because of its likelihood of driving away allies and increasing the gap. Clearly, my read on Barnett was wrong. I hope my read on Wolfowitz is wrong also. Despite my respect for Barnett, I still think "Wolfie" was a bad choice.

I was stunned to learn today that President Bush is appointing one of the most polarizing figures in the world to head the World Bank, presumably a post that requires extensive diplomacy skills. I confess that I don't have a deep understanding of the World Bank or the duties of its leader. So, I am unqualified to say who I think would have been a good appointment. However, I am quite certain that Mr. Wolfowitz is not the best choice. One wonders how this is going to go over with Europe. Actually, one doesn't have to wonder too hard. Of course, the Bush Administration has a history of thumbing its nose at Eurpoe, and this is no exception. Eventually, however, the lack of diplomacy is going to cost the U.S. There will come a time when we want a friend or we need favors more than we do today, and we better hope the people we continue to piss off are not the grude holding type.

I learned today that the World Bank appointment, traditonally made by the United States, does not require congressional approval in the manner that a U.S. cabinet appointment would, for example. Perhaps this is why Bush chose this position for Wolfowitz. He wants to reward him for his loyalty, and he knows that there is a snow angel's chance in hell that he would ever be confirmed for any appointment in the U.S. Congress.