Rubin on Wolf

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Lending the Good Loan

Former Clinton Asst. Secretart of State, Jamie Rubin on Wolfowitz's nomination ...

But there is an important difference between Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Bolton. While Mr. Bolton appears to reject the very purpose of the United Nations, Mr. Wolfowitz has supported the idea that the advanced countries should use their resources to promote democracy and prosperity around the world. Indeed, at the core of the neoconservative mission is the expenditure of American resources in support of democratic values.

Mr. Wolfowitz himself has called the World Bank's mission of reducing poverty "one of the greatest moral challenges of our time." He is just the right person to build support for this crucial task during the Bush administration.

...

Some critics oppose Mr. Wolfowitz on the grounds that he was responsible for so many military and political failures in Iraq. It is true that the civilians in the Pentagon were negligent in planning for the aftermath of war in Iraq; there weren't enough American troops and there were few contingency plans to secure the country against a potential insurgency. It is also true that Mr. Wolfowitz was na?ve in predicting that American forces would be seen as liberators instead of occupiers by many Iraqis, and that reconstruction could be financed largely through Iraqi oil revenues.

But these were questions of means, not motive. His motives were laudable and in line with a tradition of foreign policy idealism that both parties have supported at different times: the use of American power to fight tyranny and support democratic values. Mr. Wolfowitz was one of the few Republicans who supported President Clinton's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Again ... dead on. For my own accounting, there's a fault line somewhere between Wolfowitz and Rice in terms of how I see the means and the motive getting muddied. I'm no fan of Rice's work and tend to see her as more of a yes-woman at precisely one of those positions where such a feature is far from being an attribute. Wolfowitz has been more principled, well-intentioned, and reasoned. Not perfect by any means, nor my own choice were I the one appointing, but given the playing field, there's not a lot better you'd get in this role.