Lewis Bollard’s opinion piece (“America’s Shaky Ambassadors,” op-ed, Apr. 26) makes some useful points about the perils of political appointments. It is true (and sad) that the U.S. is the only country in the world besides the Philippines that regularly assigns its largest embassies to party loyalists.

But this is not new. For every Franklin or Jefferson cited by Bollard, there were a dozen men like Dan Sickles, who seduced the Queen of Spain, or Robert Schenck, who as Minister to the Court of St. James taught the British to play draw poker and then cheated them out of millions. All were political figures, not professional diplomats. The U.S. did not have a professional diplomatic corps until the early 20th century. Many Americans remain ambivalent about it, in contrast to other professions like the military. It is hard to imagine the American people tolerating a high number of four-star generals and admirals being named from the ranks of campaign contributors, even in peacetime.

On the other hand, having the president’s ear can be critical. Few foreign service officers are able to claim it unless they are politically well-connected themselves.

Finally, a high-profile political appointee can send a strong signal to a nervous ally (or potential ally). A good example is Boris Yeltsin, who was delighted when Bill Clinton told him in 1993 that former Vice President Walter Mondale would come as the new ambassador. When Mondale changed his mind, Clinton sent Thomas Pickering, then the country’s most senior career minister, in his place. Yeltsin was furious, feeling he had been saddled with an apparatchik. He reportedly never trusted Clinton again.



KENNETH WEISBRODE

Cambridge, Mass.

April 26, 2006