George Bush’s selection of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank represents not only blatant patronage for a loyal supporter, but an in-your-face affront to feckless Europeans and others skeptical of the American Mission. As noteworthy as the nomination itself was the manner in which it was announced, almost as an afterthought at a press conference on a host of other issues. Was the choice deliberately underplayed, to minimize the risk that Ireland might sever relations over the snubbing of Bono? Is it conceivable that even this administration, infamous for its shamelessness, recognized that this might be a little over the top, and called for a more low key announcement?

No, what is significant is that Bush appeared to float the idea as a trial balloon, while actually presenting it as a fait accompli, effectively telling the world “you’re either with us or against us.” When Wolfowitz’s name was first raised a few weeks ago, the Bank’s board of directors requested that the U.S. provide a list of several possible candidates. As such, Bush’s announcement preempted discussion of alternatives, causing consternation across the Atlantic.

Much of the press tried to put the best face on European reaction, with the New York Times describing it as "largely positive." Jacques Chirac raised Gallic inscrutability to a new level, indicating he would evaluate Wolfowitz "in a spirit of friendship and bearing in mind the missions of the World Bank." Evidently the Times omitted the remainder of the statement, "bearing in mind getting him out of the [expletive] Pentagon before he can destroy Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Corsica." Despite concerns expressed by the EU, it appears unlikely they will derail the nomination.

The reservations I harbor about Wolfowitz’s nomination are not based on any personal animus. This commentator in fact worked for Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, about fifty levels of management below him, and in my direct experience he was generally thoughtful, concerned with substance, courteous, and respectful of the career staff.

It is his ideology that I find deeply troubling. While the photogenic Donald Rumsfeld receives more attention, Paul Wolfowitz is the intellectual godfather of this administration’s policy of preemptive war. Since the first Gulf War, he consistently beat the drum for the removal of Saddam Hussein by force. For the past decade he has argued for the aggressive use of U.S. power to remake the world, especially the Middle East, to his liking. There are strong indications that in the aftermath of 9/11, Wolfowitz advocated bombing Iraq immediately, without even a pretense of justification based on WMD or links to al Qaeda. His creative approach to analyzing intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq shows him to be a man who shoots first and asks questions later, if at all.

Most of the articles on Wolfowitz’s nomination have to stretch a bit to describe how his background prepares him for the World Bank. Realizing that the national security issues on which he has spent 98% of his time are of questionable relevance, most focus on his tenure as Ambassador to Indonesia. Citing that experience as preparation for a development career should give one pause, unless the model for development one has in mind entails handing over your natural resources to rapacious U.S. mining companies and using a corrupt and brutal army to crush dissent.

Given Wolfowitz's failure to plan adequately for the reconstruction of Iraq (which, astoundingly, he assumed would be self-financing), it seems an act of folly to entrust him with this portfolio, a major part of which involves countries emerging from conflict. On the other hand, some Third World nations may console themselves with the thought that if their development cannot be funded through exploitation of their own resources, Wolfowitz will find them a $100 billion supplemental appropriation to do the job.

Many columnists analyzing this nomination have discussed the parallels with Robert McNamara, though only a few touch on the real differences. When McNamara resigned as Defense Secretary, he recognized the failure of the Vietnam policy he championed. He entered the World Bank humbled and aware of the limits of American power. This introspection is alien to Wolfowitz and his colleagues. The neocons steadfastly believe that the invasion of Iraq was a success, and a model for other "liberations." Wolfowitz is going to his new job in triumph, hoping to transplant his ideas and methods.

The World Bank's recent history is one of forcing structural adjustment programs on Third World countries, slashing their public sectors in the name of economic efficiency. Such an approach complements current American conservative ideology, which considers government to be evil by its very nature. Wolfowitz’s role in presiding over the forced privatization of the Iraqi economy is cause for alarm. This administration believes in the destruction of the public sector and the privatization of all services as a theological concept, regardless of local conditions or whether it actually works. To fully unleash this ideology on the developing world would be catastrophic.

Some editorial page optimists are hoping for a Road to Damascus conversion when Wolfowitz reaches the Bank, and they may prove me wrong. Unfortunately, I think Wolfowitz remains a True Believer, who has drunk too much of the triumphalist Kool Aid. By focusing on the logic of this choice, the media analysis misses the point. The White House needs no justification. This is part of a long-range plan to extend their ideological reach beyond the U.S. government and ensure their historical legacy, betting that Wolfowitz's tenure will outlast this administration and continue to influence the world for years to come.