Daniel Benjamin’s defense of political appointees to US ambassadorships is based on the belief that political appointees bring needed insights and momentum into our international relations (“Politics can make for fitting envoys,” Op-ed, March 16).
In my experience, there are a number of differences between political and career diplomats. The first is the uneven quality among the political appointees. Some are very good or adequate as ambassadors, especially if they follow the advice of the deputy chief of mission, while others are mediocre or even disgraceful. In those cases, the deputy chief is responsible for upholding the credibility of the US diplomatic presence.
Professional diplomats who reach the rank of either ambassador or deputy chief of mission are almost all very good. They understand diplomacy, know how to run an embassy, speak the language of the country to which they are assigned, know its culture, and understand the power relationships within it.
Advertisement
The fact that the United States has so many political appointees, based on fund-raising for the president, blocks many superb US diplomats from ever achieving the rank of ambassador. Benjamin notes several political appointees who did outstanding jobs in their respective embassies in Brussels, Berlin, and Paris. None of the three was a “clunker,” but to justify clunkers as those who are “unlikely to do much damage” is wrong.
During one assignment, I had contact with the French, German, British, Italian, and Dutch ambassadors to the United States, all professionals at the top of the respective foreign services.
Why do we do what we do? Because we are powerful enough to do so. We do not need to care. At least not yet.
The writer, a professor of the practice of international relations at Boston University, served for 35 years in the CIA and held numerous senior positions overseas and in Washington.