Dispirited after his stewardship of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara received a gift from President Johnson: leadership of the World Bank. It was a challenge, heading the most powerful and prestigious organization aiding Third World development. McNamara chose redemption, rose to the challenge and succeeded.

President Bush offered the same gift to Paul Wolfowitz, his deputy defense secretary, and Wolfowitz made a remarkable mess of the opportunity. Redemption is no longer an option; the end of his failed tenure is a matter of time.

Why the difference?

McNamara, a brilliant and stubborn man, knew that the war in Vietnam had failed but saw the importance of his opportunity – a chance to lead in a different arena and to leave his mark in the world of development.

Frequently asked about Vietnam, McNamara refused to discuss it. He dove into Third World development with passion and intellectual curiosity. Surrounded by an elite of the world’s “best and brightest” in development issues, he showed respect, asked questions and used World Bank veterans for his own education and to carry out his initiatives.

McNamara brought along a few assistants. They were support staff, such as a talented speechwriter – not policy interlopers to challenge bank officers.

He sought new sectors for bank involvement, expanded the volume of lending and financing for the poorest nations and became respected in development. In doing so, McNamara solidified the informal understanding that had existed since the creation of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank before the end of World War II: A European would head the IMF, and an American would lead the World Bank.

McNamara left his personal life out of the World Bank; there were no discrepancies between his policy demands and his actions.

The Wolfowitz record is a stark contrast. Also intelligent and stubborn, Wolfowitz has not put Iraq behind him. He is accused of rewarding countries that supported the war and punishing recalcitrants.

There is visceral anger among developed and developing countries over Iraq. Wolfowitz is seen as an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq war.

Given his ardent role in predicting speedy, positive and far-reaching benefits from the war throughout the Middle East, his refusal to put Iraq behind him is a damaging legacy.

The assistants Wolfowitz brought with him, Kevin Kellems and Robin Cleveland, usurped policy positions and became barriers to senior bank officers.

Wolfowitz shows disdain for the bank’s staff and the leadership he inherited. He is blamed for the resignation and retirement of respected, skilled professionals and for deep, open opposition to his continuing in office.

Wolfowitz made his priority fighting corruption in developing countries. And he also brought his personal life into the spotlight.

The collision has been colorful and embarrassing.

Not only has his girlfriend, who worked at the bank, received treatment that would be considered corrupt in any country, the assignment Wolfowitz provided her is bizarre. The World Bank sent a British citizen to work at the State Department and pays her more than the U.S. secretary of state!

The World Bank Staff Association has called on Wolfowitz “to do the decent thing” and resign. Employees wear blue ribbons calling for his resignation.

Calls have come from around the world, including from finance ministers, for him to step down. A committee of the bank’s executive directors is grappling with his future, and the European Parliament voted for his dismissal.

Such pressure will prevail. The only question is when Wolfowitz leaves and how much more damage he will do before then.

The contrast between McNamara and Wolfowitz is profound. McNamara showed that fresh starts are possible, significant accomplishments can follow failures and skilled individuals can strengthen American international leadership.

The obstinacy of Wolfowitz and the Bush administration are causing damage beyond the World Bank. They call into question the heretofore assumed American leadership of this major organization. The Europeans are saying that if the United States cannot or will not lead, the old deal is up for renegotiation.

McNamara proved that despite Vietnam, the United States was able to provide effective international leadership. Wolfowitz and the Bush administration are compounding the Iraq debacle with a decline in international acceptance of American leadership.

McNamara’s example is the one to emulate. Redemption and American leadership still have a future.