We seek to understand the world, but it's made harder when part of it is hidden from us.
Leaked documents, represent a kind of ground truth, showing how the world really works. Telling us what's for sale, what the real agendas are, how powerful spies are, and how coordinated governments are. They are almost the opposite to conspiracy theories, as they present observations that can prune conspiracy theories.
But there are too many documents to read, so let's compare notes. What surprised you and caused you to update your view of the world?
Feel free to give a low effort reply, it's better than nothing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Ehhh..sort of a nothing burger, in my opinion.
This has been known for a long time. There's a great clip of John McCain asking questions to some Ambassador nominees. Well, he asks the same question to each of them - "Have you ever been to the country you are to be the ambassador of?" They all say "No," McCain replies, "I have no more questions for these highly qualified candidates." It's hilarious.
It also doesn't matter because 1) The ambassadorships that matter always go to career no-bullshit diplomats or politicians who are still very qualified (see Rahm Emanuel as Ambo to Japan at present) and 2) For the donor-Ambo's .... they still have the full, career diplomat staff behind them. If anything, it kind of frees up the State Department staff to actually get shit done with their counterparts while the multi-millionaire donor/ambassador gladly spends all of his/her time going to dinners and galas and what not. The last thing you want is that person actually trying to run the diplomat staff and setting and agenda.
oh yeah, I don't think we're in disagreement here. I'm just showing with the State Dept link that this isn't a secret.
re: McCain, that's funny, but also I'm surprised if Denise Bauer or whomever was trying to be the Ambassador to France had not been to France. Maybe makes sense if it's to Sweden or Luxembourg?
I think, and maybe also your point, that ambassadors to smaller-but-potentially-important countries might also not have been there previously. E.g. Jonathan Pratt was the last US Ambassador to Djibouti, and had postings from Pakistan, DR Congo, R. of Congo, Jordan, Sudan... but I highly doubt he'd have ever been to, or needed to have been to, Djibouti prior to taking up the post there.
Even below those positions (i.e. less known professional staff that support the Ambassadors and Consulate Generals), career Foreign Service folks are rotated around frequently in my experience (grew up abroad, had a lot of interaction with local consulate folks). For example someone who was the business/economy attache was moved to a post in South East Asia after 5 years at the consulate in my hometown. They got 6 months of essentially full-time language learning before moving over there to begin the new post, and of you go! Again, no reason they would've needed to have been to e.g. Hanoi or Phnom Penh before getting a post there.
Good point regarding necessity of a previous visit.
Furthermore, I (think) I found the McCain clip I referenced. It's actually more substantive than I remember, and only with one nominee. Still ends with the great punchline though.
oh this guy! lol. Wasn't this hearing so bad that he withdrew from the nomination to Norway?
Anyway, he's the current Ambassador to Greece, which given his Greek-background seems much more appropriate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link