The Wolfowitz Affair

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't yet posted on the Wolfowitz scandal at The World Bank, but I can't resist quoting this piece in The Telegraph:

Paul Wolfowitz, the embattled World Bank chief, launched into a threatening tirade against members of his staff when news of his controversial pay and promotion package for his girlfriend began to leak out, it emerged yesterday.

The revelation was one of the more damning elements of a report by a special investigative panel, which concluded that the scandal "had a dramatic, negative effect on the reputation and credibility" of the bank.

The whole affair is "banal and tawdry," as Heraclitus put it a while ago, and I tend to agree. Is it bad? Yes. Is it that bad? Well, no. What is that bad is the scandal, not the "pay and promotion package," which is precisely what the report implies.

To the extent that Wolfowitz has damaged the credibility of the institution, not to mention whatever was left of his own credibility after his role in getting the Iraq War off the ground, he would do well to resign. As The Washington Post is reporting, after all, the report determines that "[his] actions manifest a lack of understanding for and a disregard for the institution as a public international organization," and that he may no longer "be able to provide the leadership needed to ensure that the bank continues to operate to the fullest extent possible".

Matthew Yglesias is right to point out that "hypocrisy matters" -- consider the extent of hypocrisy in the White House and throughout the Bush Administration, for example, as well as on the religious right -- but I do think that some of Wolfowitz's critics are exaggerating their criticism in this case because he "was an architect of the Iraq War," as James Kirchick wrote at The Plank (in a post that I otherwise find to be excessively apologetic). If it had been some random economist who had given his girlfriend a raise and a promotion, or if it had been a Democrat, would the criticism be what it is now? If it had been a Democrat, Republicans would be exaggerating their criticism. If it had been some randon economist, I doubt anyone would be paying much attention. (It would be yet another scandal at an international institution, just like any of the usual scandals at the U.N.) In other words, hypocrisy matters, but so does partisanship.

Which is not to say that the partisans are wrong. Far from it. Whatever the motives of some of his critics, Wolfowitz acted in an inappropriate, and indeed unethical, manner, and he is now embroiled in a scandal that has tarnished the institution of which he is the head, this according to the institution itself. Wolfowitz has fought back in force, rejecting calls for his regisnation (or firing), but a report at ABC News suggests that "all options are on the table" for the White House, that "it is an open question" whether he will remain in the job. Even the White House realizes that Wolfowitz's position is untenable, that the scandal has simply grown too large to dismiss. Bush has expressed his support for Wolfowitz in the past, and just recently, but, as Sir Humphrey once remarked, you have to get behind someone before you stab them in the back.

Wolfowitz is likely done, but it won't be because of Iraq or because of any policy failure at The World Bank. That may be fine for some, but -- and I say this as someone who dislikes Wolfowitz immensely -- I'm not so sure.

He has done far worse in other capacities, and in more serious ways, but perhaps such an undignified end is some sort of justice after all.