Ambassadors liaise with the establishment of the country – something that a very rich political appointee can do much easier than an ill paid career FSO. Thomas Schieffer was ambassador to Australia and then Japan and won raves for his handling of both postings. He’s running in the Dem primary for Governor of Texas, was part of W’s Rangers investor group (and President of the Rangers), and ran a number of firms after a decent legal career. An Ambassador of that level can entertain, open doors, and make connections far better than an FSO.

FSOs are generally alienated from America and especially its politics (not as badly as their children, but substantially). It’s just the nature of the work – living abroad for years makes it far harder to keep up with how American life is lived and the key politics. They are thus not the right people to be the most senior representatives – they will struggle to understand and convey the needs and desires of the American people and of the President. They’re also of questionable loyalty, as their ultimate prosperity relies so heavily on the contacts that they have made in their years abroad. US ambassadors to Saudi Arabia are the most notorious for post career rewards, but it applies broadly to all career FSOs. Again its the nature of their careers rather than a personal aspersion and is something that simply needs to be managed – FSO’s interests simply are not aligned with the job of Ambassador to many countries.

Sean

Without this your numbers are useless.