Why Wolfowitz?

Crooked Timber Wolfowitz for the World Bank!

I won't even try to comment on whether Wolfowitz is a good choice for the World Bank leadership. The Economist said NO, Crooked Timber makes a backhanded case for 'maybe not so bad'.

More interesting, is why someone would want to take a Pentagon #2 and have them lead the World Bank. Imagine that the decision maker (Cheney? Rove? Rumsfeld? Bush? Rice?) thought Wolfowitz was trustworthy, loyal and competent. Perhaps they thought like this:

1. The primary military threat to the US in the next 20 years comes from decaying states and non-state actors.
2. The US will deploy all of its military power against emergent threats, but this strategy will not succeed. There are too many threats and the cost of havoc will keep falling.
3. The US must drain the swamp by encouraging global wealth and prosperity.
4. The World Bank must become an agent of US defensive strategy - it must drain the swamp.
5. The World Bank is a now a military-strategic engine, hence it should be run by a Military/political strategist. Unfortunately Karl Rove is not available. Hence Wolfowitz.

If this is the thinking of Cheney/Bush/Rove/Rumsfeld/Rice then the World Bank will take on its old mission with new intensity.

I would approve (I'm sure Bush would be impressed by that!). Of course this is probably all my wishful thinking ...