Trudy Rubin Blows A Gasket

Trudy Rubin is the Mideast correspondent for the Inquirer and has reported from the region for years. Through her writing, you get the feeling that she considers herself the female Tom Friedman, living in the latest war-torn region and getting to know the power players. Anyone who has read the Friedman classic; From Beirut to Jerusalem, a book that I am currently re-reading, can see the the influence he has had in Rubin's writing. She is a good writer and generally is an honest essayist although too solipsistic for my taste.

That said, she is an avowed Liberal who has that uncurable liberal disease, the disease I don't think has been named but is quite visible in newspapers across the country. Here's an example of the main symptom:

When proven wrong, lash out like a child:

I'm glad President Bush has nominated Paul Wolfowitz to become president of the World Bank.

After all, Bush might have named him national security adviser to replace Condi Rice. At least at the World Bank his poor judgment won't lead to thousands of needless military and civilian deaths.

Do you see how Ms. Rubin is so full of bile that she couldn't wait until the third paragraph to slam Wolfowitz for being the architect of the disastrous Iraq policy? Regardless of the fact that the policy seems to be working, in Ms. Rubin's worldview it's a quagmire. Deep down in a part of her that she doesn't let the world see, I think Trudy knows that a paradigm shift is occurring and she can't bring herself to give Bush or the Neocon cabal credit.

In fact, the World Bank would have been a better home for Wolfowitz than the Pentagon, where he is deputy defense secretary. Of all the neoconservatives who pushed for toppling Saddam Hussein, he was the only apparent idealist, the one who seriously believed from the start that Iraq might become a model for change in the Mideast. In person, he exudes charm and intelligence and concern for global humanitarian needs.

But idealism can be dangerous when it morphs into utopian zeal. When it came to Iraq, Wolfowitz refused to countenance any challenge to his superior vision, rejecting any information that contradicted his belief that the going in postwar Iraq would be easy. That willful blindness made possible the insurgency that still threatens Iraq's future and keeps 150,000 U.S. troops in harm's way.

You can see how Rubin still can't admit that the events in Iraq are the a model for change in the Mideast. You can almost hear her mumbling to herself: "it's because Arafat died" or "Hariri's death is leading to the Lebanese protests" anything but believing that Wolfowitz and Bush were even remotely right.

With all the celebrations over Iraq's elections, many people forget how badly Wolfowitz handled the planning for the postwar.

Indeed. We know how well the post-war for Germany was planned before we engaged Hitler's forces in north Africa or the Japanese in the pacific. Rubin is using the old MSM standby of accusing the administration of "not planning for the peace". This is utter garbage and Rubin knows it. Any war planning goes out the window once shots are fired, and because Bush exhausted all options before the invasion including; presenting evidence to the UN, allowing inspectors to investigate and all the other hoops Bush jumped through, the foundation of the insurgency was allowed to assemble and strategize. This extra time allowed the forces of al-Qaeda, now led by al-Zarqawi to set-up a terrorist network throughout the Sunni-led portions of the nation.

Such gross miscalculations meant the United States was unprepared for Iraq's postwar chaos, which is why the insurgency and criminal mafias could flourish. Wolfowitz also told Congress that Iraqi oil money would quickly enable Iraq to pay for reconstruction, although it was widely known that Iraq's degraded fields needed years and billions in investment for restoration. You and I are now footing the bill.

Iraqi reconstruction - for which Wolfowitz also bears responsibility - has a dismal track record. Huge sums have been wasted on large projects while Iraqi unemployment remains substantial. Early American plans to privatize Iraqi industry, and possibly oil, quickly foundered on legal realities, along with Iraq's dismal economic and security conditions. Mercifully so, since too-swift privatization might have created another Russia, where natural resources were sold for a song to a handful of sharpsters.

Hadn't the Pentagon ever reviewed the sad story of Russian privatization, where U.S. pressure for fast action created a fierce public backlash against free markets and renewed Russian yearning for a strongman?

The use of Iraqi oil money to assist with reconstruction is at this point an open question. Did Rubin really believe that the administration did not know about the state of Iraq's infrastructure? Of course it was known that there would be years of work to get oil production up to pre-war levels. When the oil fields are running at capacity and Iraqi oil is flowing freely, we will get reduced prices that will in turn pay some of the money back. I think that Rubin is just as naive as she accuses Wolfowitz of being by believing that we would invade, win and turn on the spigots.

As for unemployment and privatization, isn't two years a bit of a rush to conced defeat? As Arthur Chrenkoff has pointed out on numerous occassions things are getting better and as the infrastructure is repaired and expanded, more work will be available. I think that entire paragraph is a veiled smack at the free market capitalism that the very Socialist Rubin abhors.

Of course, Rubin couldn't get through an entire piece without the thinly veiled whack at the evil Halliburton.

The Russian analogy is not apt in this situation as they "elected" a leader who was a part of the Soviet machine and was once the leader of the KGB. You did not accede to the head of any Soviet agency without the payoffs and rewards that were handed out or received. Vladimir Putin allowed the Russian economy to slide into the abyss it now resides because he knew full well that the Russian people would fall back to the "strongman" mindset that they've lived under for centuries. The comparison between the two is ludicrous at best.

So, you ask, why reward such bad performance with the top spot at the World Bank?

No Trudy, you ask. Please don't speak for me or the other 51% who voted to keep Bush in power. Believe or not, some of us actually believe that Wolfowitz did a good jobs, as did Perle.

Reason one: At least Wolfowitz appears to care about development issues. The President just picked as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations a man who openly despises the world body - John Bolton. The World Bank choice could have been far worse.

Reason two: Wolfowitz might just follow in the steps of Robert McNamara, who left the Pentagon at the height of the Vietnam War to become president of the World Bank. McNamara fought a determined battle against global poverty. Of course, he had reflected on the mistakes he made in Vietnam; so far, Wolfowitz hasn't admitted to any mistakes.

McNamara was reconstructed in the eye of the American left because he said all the right things after the war that the anti-war types wanted to hear. If Wolfowitz came out for abortion rights, gay marriage and raising taxes, he would be the darling of the Manhattan party circuit. Well, he may have to say that the evil Bushitler was a stupid chimp who couldn't tie his own shoes without Laura's help. Then he would be feted as a genius.

Reason three: In running the World Bank, Wolfowitz, the utopian visionary, may finally be forced to face facts. "Unilateral bullying," says Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, "won't work." The World Bank can certainly do with more accountability, and there is room at the bank for "a kind of vision," says Birdsall. That includes presidential pressure on lenders for democratic reforms - Wolfowitz's passion.

The Center for Global Development information can be found here. The seem to be a think tank that writes a lot of papers, berates industrialized nations for not "giving enough" and is the type of organization that Liberals love. The successes they've had remain to be seen.

But a World Bank president can't just cram D.C.-made formulas down countries' throats or he will generate lender backlash and development failure. Wolfowitz now says he wants to listen. Let's hope he's finally seen the light.

I think he has seen the light Ms. Rubin, it's just a different wattage and color than the light you wish for.

Update: Chrenkoff has more thoughts.