In sheep's clothing?

There has been considerable international anger at the nomination, by the US President, of Paul Wolfowitz for the post of the next president of the World Bank. He has been the deputy secretary of defense in the US government.

He is widely seen as one of the main drivers of the war against Iraq and its occupation by the US, and the man who the day after 9/11 pointed the finger at Iraq. He is also seen as the man who under-estimated what that adventure would cost the US.

He belongs to a group of ideologues called "NeoCons", short for neo-conservatives who want to change the way the world is organised, and are willing to be militarily aggressive in order to achieve their objectives.

He endorses the theory propounded by Robert Kagan that pre-emptive war is the way to go, and does not seem to have changed that view despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (which might have given justification to pre-emption).

He is also believed to be of the view that the sooner the US takes on Iran, the better it will be for the US and possibly for the world as well. The idea of cooperation does not seem to come automatically to him.

Little wonder, then, that there is so much consternation. Mr Bush's explanation""that as deputy defense secretary, he knew how to manage large organisations""has made matters worse.

As the New York Times commented, "Even he seemed slightly flummoxed about why a job that is all about international cooperation should go to a man whose work has so outraged many of the nations with which he will be expected to work."

There might, however, be another way of looking at the issue. Mr Wolfowitz is the second of his key staff who encouraged him to go to war with Iraq that Mr Bush is pushing out of the government.

The first was Robert Bolton, a hardline conservative, who has been sent off as America's ambassador to the UN and has drawn a similarly adverse reaction from other countries.

So, even if Mr Wolfowitz is not the man for the World Bank job, it does seem as if he is being given a golden handshake. The World Bank's loss will be George Bush's gain.

That is why, instead of focusing solely on whether he is the right man for the Bank job or not, it might make sense to evaluate what this means for US foreign/offence policy. The signal seems quite clear.

It should also be recalled that somewhat similar sentiments were expressed when Robert McNamara, who was as widely credited with being the chief architect of the Vietnam war as Mr Wolfowitz is of the Iraq war, was asked to head the Bank.

But Mr McNamara turned out just fine, largely, it was said, because he was overcome with remorse at what he had wrought in Vietnam. Whether the light will shine for Mr Wolfowitz also remains to be seen. But, given his potential to do damage, he is surely better off at the Bank than in the US government.