Campaign Bundlers get Ambassador Roles Despite never having been to the Countries!

The President can make a phone call and speak with authority, but he won't have a network of deep relationships and a robust understanding of the country that a competent diplomat can have.

A career FSO is better qualified to do the job and the job should be a lot more value-creating than to get foreign politicians drunk and laid. We live in a competitive geopolitical landscape with a sophisticated network of military, political, economic and cultural relationships. There's space enough for real professionals to do real work.

 

..except that most interactions are on a subject matter expert level, of which there are 1000s that work on either side, as well as the various deputies + undersecretaries - hence the designee language i wrote above. Why should these all be routed through the political appointee ambassador who is not one ? Basically why go back to the 19th century role? Modern communications have invalidated the Graham Greene conception - probably for the better.

Why? Because you said so? Followed by a bunch of generalities? Can you illustrate this value add at an ambassador level in contemporary times, balancing it a gainst the loss of ambassador as party host? Or are you just conjecturing.

Mind you - you may be right - but I don't really understand what "value creating" you're talking about here. If the job is hosting parties for French elites, Anna wintour is going to do a better job than Bob from Leesburg and his GS-19 salary. If the job is generating white papers then it is the wonks or is the bureaucratic grinders role. Thats not the job and given the increasing superfluousness of Ambassadors its unlikely to be.

 

Exactly.

The combination of ignorance and wannabe arrogance in SamFisher's posts about people in diplomatic service is amazing.