Explore the vast range of titles available.

On June 1, 2005, a distinctly different leader will take over the World Bank from [James D Wolfensohn]. Wolfowitz is likely to take the bank in a new direction, although, like [Robert McNamara] decades before, Wolfowitz could surprise the development community and bring health and human development to the fore. One thing is clear: if Wolfowitz is to succeed at the bank, he must be able to change his image and the perceptions in both developing and creditor country governments. He must erase fears that he plans to use the bank to implement US foreign policy goals. Outgoing President Jim Wolfensohn has warned against politicising the bank and its mission. The world will be watching Wolfowitz's every move.

America's debate over whether and how to invade Iraq clustered into civilian versus military camps. Top military officials appeared reluctant to use force, the most hawkish voices in government were civilians who had not served in uniform, and everyone was worried that the American public would not tolerate casualties in war. This book shows that this civilian-military argument--which has characterized earlier debates over Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo--is typical, not exceptional. Indeed, the underlying pattern has shaped U.S. foreign policy at least since 1816. The new afterword by Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi traces these themes through the first two years of the current Iraq war, showing how civil-military debates and concerns about sensitivity to casualties continue to shape American foreign policy in profound ways.

This article discusses the current precarious state of the US economy vis-a-vis the rise of China and the US proxy war in Ukraine. It discusses the problematic of a capitalist economy and the fundamental requirement of capital accumulation to avert and circumvent capitalist cyclical crises. It also discusses the methodology of accumulation, the law of value and the necessity of geographic hegemonic control in order to sustain homeostasis within a capitalist economy. Brought into the discussion is the effect such a dynamic imposes upon not only the hegemons (US, EU, Russia, and China) within the global economy but also the population and environment that such an unrelenting mission imposes upon the ecology and geopolitical state of affairs. In response to the endogenous exigencies of capital accumulation and the exogenous threats that such projects as China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Russia's interests as an Eastern European hegemon present, US foreign policy is designed as strategies (\"strategy of containment\" in reference to Russia after World War II and now the \"strategy of denial\" to contain the influence China presents as a world hegemon). Also, policy changes that are codified, such as the Bush Doctrine and the National Security Strategy of the United States of America provided legal rationalization and protection for the US to pursue practices that contravened international law i.e. the Geneva Conventions. China has emerged as a world hegemon and is ubiquitously engaging on the world stage especially in Eastern, Western and South Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, South and Central America, and Mexico. The country is becoming a threat to US capitalist interest with their \"natural partnerships,\" with their China–Arab States Cooperation Forum (CASCF), with their 1+2+3 Cooperation Frameworks, and with their 4 Action Plans within these countries. These Chinese initiatives as actions are seen to be destabilizing what the US calls \"the balance of power\" and \"the rules-based order\" within the global economy. The US is counteracting the threat to US capital accumulation with its neoliberal and neocon agenda, mostly formulated by the main actors within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who play an important role in formulating US foreign policy in the interest of US capital and the US military industrial complex. The US is implementing this with the postulates outlined in the 2021 book The Strategy of Denial: American Defense in an Age of Great Power Conflict by Eldridge A. Colby and his fellow cohorts within the CFR who formulated the theory and particulars of the strategy that the US is currently pursuing.

World Bank staff members also repeatedly accused Wolfowitz of insulating himself behind small groups of aides, disregarding the counsel of veteran bank officers and running the bank as an adjunct of the Bush administration.

An interview with Professor Marvin Ott is presented.

Neo-conservatives who had urged that President George W. Bush should insist on Wolfowitz keeping his post were correct on that point, if nothing else: underlying much of the international pressure for him to go was the feeling that a man who had been so instrumental in bringing about the catastrophe in Iraq should not be lording it at the top of one of the world's major financial institutions. According to a Feb. 2, 2006 statement posted on the Web site of the Council for a Community of Democracies: Governments from the United States, Europe, and the broader Middle East and North Africa are establishing the Foundation for the Future in response to calls from civil society for an independent foundation to support freedom and democratic practices in the broader Middle East and North Africa.

George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq to test out an idea that had been gestating for 25 years. In the late 1970s, an ambitious young Pentagon analyst named Paul Dundes Wolfowitz identified Iraq as a likely future threat to American interests. A trained political scientist and ardent anticommunist, Wolfowitz distrusted the ruthless Saddam Hussein and thought him susceptible to Soviet influence. Yet he also recognized that abhoring a despot’s methods was not sufficient cause to effect his removal. Wolfowitz instead formulated a radical theory that the Middle East represented fertile ground on which to plant American-style values. He concluded that this oil-rich, Muslim-majority region would embrace westernization and that Israel represented a beacon of sorts. The Zionist movement had proved that democracy and rapid economic growth could take root in arid, forbidding climes. Could not Muslims and Kurds do the same in Iraq?

On this edition of Meet the Press: Jim Miklaszewski provides an update on the attack on the Baghdad hotel where Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, was staying; Colin Powell discusses the security situation in Iraq; Senators Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Hagel discuss the role of intelligence in the case for war; insights and analysis from David Broder, Robert Novak, and David Yepsen.

Col Lawrence Wilkerson, who helped sell the ill-fated 2003 Iraq War as Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, sees disturbing similarities between the buildup to the Iraq War and current efforts to get the US entangled in a military confrontation with Iran. On June 28, Wilkerson joined journalist Mehdi Hasan's Deconstructed podcast to reflect on the current warmongering efforts of the Trump administration. In the build-up to the Iraq War, he noted, Paul Wolfowitz of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans fed VP Dick Cheney with unfinished intelligence to help sell the war.

Since 9/11, a small group of neoconservatives in the Bush administration have effectively gutted-they would say reformed-traditional American foreign and security policy. Some skeptics, however, have suggested that their underlying agenda is the alignment of U.S. foreign and security policies with those of Ariel Sharon and the Israel right wing. Here, Green presents a review of the internal security backgrounds of some of the best known neoconservatives in order to ascertain whether they had dual agendas while professing to work for the internal security of the US against its terrorist enemies.