If one chose to ignore all the facts, the affair would seem very sinister, to be certain. But of course, it’s not at all.  A reasonable person could look at the chain of events and come to the conclusion that Wolfowitz bent over backward to avoid both the fact and the appearance of impropriety. The near-50% increase in Ms. Riza’s salary looks odd, but the fact that it’s more than Dr. Rice makes is a red herring. In any event,

...this is highly selective outrage given normal procedure at the bank.

Of its roughly 10,000 employees, no fewer than 1,396 have salaries higher than the U.S. Secretary of State; clearly “fighting poverty” does not mean taking a vow of poverty at “multilateral” institutions. At the time of Ms. Riza’s departure from the bank, she was a Grade “G” (senior professional) employee; the typical salary in that grade hovers around the $124,000 mark. For the next level, Grade “H"--the level to which Ms. Riza was due to be promoted--salaries average in the $170,000 range, with an upper band of $232,360. No fewer than 17% of bank employees are in this happy bracket.

So, no, it’s not sinister in the least.

Sinister or not, Wolfowitz has now chosen to give up the ghost. As reported in Friday’s WSJ, ”Wolfowitz Quits World Bank as U.S. Relents“. The mythical “reasonable person” could conclude he was railroaded. (For the record, the corrolary of the previous statement is not “Anyone who thinks he wasn’t railroaded is unreasonable").

Unable to overcome charges of ethical misconduct, Paul Wolfowitz resigned as World Bank president yesterday within hours of getting a final White House signal that he should abandon a fierce battle save to his job.

So, why all the feigned outrage, and why the blatant politics involved in the ouster of Wolfowitz? At least four things, according to reports.

• Most often reported is the Bank’s constitutional aversion to ensuring that it’s not flushing money down various ratholes. The signature of Wolfowitz’s administration at the Bank has been his anti-corruption drive. Doing so, of course, makes the jobs of the Bank’s staff more difficult, and it subjects them to standards they’re not used to, and unwilling to abide.

  Some of Mr. Wolfowitz’s accusers--notably, former general counsel Roberto Danino--are angry precisely because he upset their lifetime sinecure by demanding higher performance.

  So there’s that.

• Also at issue is the discomfiture of the staffers from the other countries which comprise the Bank’s shareholders (of which the US is the largest) at the fact the US has named the last ten presidents of the Bank. Like many of the world’s international institutions, smaller countries get chapped at the continually recognition of the US present role at the head of the table, in terms of financial heft. In addition to their successful hounding of Wolfowitz from office, the rumbles for non-American leadership at the bank are flowing, as advocated at Reuters, pseudo-reported at the Globe and Mail, and surely made part of the palaver elsewhere.
• Furthermore, there are those who trace the beginnings of this end to Wolfowitz’s involvement elsewhere, to matters utterly unrelated to his actions at the World Bank. An example can be found in the Telegraph story entitled ”Downfall precipitated by Iraq war“
• And of course, the generalized “Bush Explanation”, from the Globe and Mail, prior to the resignation:

  The scandal that is likely to cost Mr. Wolfowitz his job was narrowly about favouritism toward Ms. Riza. More broadly, however, the showdown at the World Bank became a metaphor for Mr. Bush’s troubled relations with the rest of the world—and particularly Europe—over Iraq, the broader Middle East, global warming and trade.

Oddly, without giving any of them any credence for operational worthiness, each of those four rationale for his ouster seems far more solid than the one by which he was finally forced to fall on his sword.

Whatever the actual reasoning of those wanting a head on a pike, resourceful enemies in politics, just like activists in the business world or, for that matter, a group of sixth grade girls, can find a way to introduce chum into the water. And if they’re able to fool enough of the people enough of the time, they’ll get their man.

Possible successors, according to the New York Times?

Speculation about Mr. Wolfowitz’s successor ranged from Paul A. Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, to Mr. Blair and Stanley Fischer, the finance minister of Israel and a former top official at the International Monetary Fund. Also mentioned have been various prominent figures on Wall Street, including Douglas A. Warner III, a former chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase and chairman of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

In addition, speculation has centered on two officials close to Mr. Bush: Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt and Robert B. Zoellick, a former deputy secretary of state.

There are some worthies in there, but I’d prefer Fischer be removed from the list, as he’s no longer American (relinquished citizenship and took Israeli residency) and I see no problem with continued American stewardship of the Bank.

My favorite two choices, not on the list? John Bolton, or failing that, Dick Cheney. Because sometimes, the best response to a defeat such as the US (no, not Bush, and not Wolfowitz - the US) has had jammed down its throat by the bureaucrats at the World Bank (or the other international institutions whose design allows the pretense that each crappy little country has just as much to add as all others) is the same thing, only more so.

Addendum - Worth reading, the after-action op-ed at OpinionJournal.