• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Envoys Are Quietly Pushing Out Career Diplomats

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,870
Reaction score
8,353
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
This will not turn out well for the United States

Trump Envoys Are Quietly Pushing Out Career Diplomats

It’s not the first time the State Department has had to respond to allegations of mismanagement at embassies abroad, nor is it unique to the current administration. But Trump’s politically appointed ambassadors are sacking their deputy chiefs of mission—an embassy’s second-in-command post held by foreign service officers—in unusually high numbers, officials say.
(. . .)
Ambassadors have full authority to remove their deputy chief of mission, even without cause, given how important the relationship between an ambassador and his or her deputy is to ensuring the smooth management of an embassy. But the high rate at which it’s happening now reflects how wide the gulf can be between politically appointed ambassadors and the diplomatic corps—an issue laid bare by Trump’s impeachment trial that dragged the State Department into Congressional impeachment investigations. Behind the scenes, some officials fear it is hampering embassies’ abilities to carry out their missions.

“We are deeply concerned by the number of removals of deputy chiefs of mission overseas, which are happening at way above the normal pace,” said Eric Rubin, a senior foreign service officer currently serving as president of the American Foreign Service Association, the union that represents U.S. diplomats. “It’s generally very rare for a DCM to be removed by the ambassador. It does happen. Sometimes it happens for a good cause. But it’s rare. And it is now becoming an epidemic.”

The embassies where deputy chiefs are being sacked are all led by deep-pocketed Republican political donors whom Trump tapped to be ambassadors, despite some having no prior diplomatic or government experience.
Click to expand...
 
He's draining the swamp so he can make room for the sewage the Trump administration pumps in there in return. I'll take a swamp over sewage any day of the week.
 
Somerville said:
This will not turn out well for the United States
Click to expand...

This is what happens when "career" people think they are more important than the policies of the people they work for.

The government should NEVER be a place where someone should feel like they deserve their job simply because they've had it for a long time. Like any business, employees should strive to work for the person in charge so they can keep their job.

If these career people can't get that through their heads, well...like in any business, they will be sent packing.
 
Dayton3 said:
So...
Click to expand...


Are you as a "Very Conservative" participant on DP telling the readers that you really don't give a **** about knowledgeable, patriotic Americans being fired by people who don't actually have a clue about diplomatic relations? That you could care less about the adverse reactions to these people being fired?

"AMERICA FIRST!! We don't need no steenkin' relationships to those furriners!"
 
Somerville said:
This will not turn out well for the United States
Click to expand...

Well, of course some will look at this "negatively," but IMO Ambassadors should have the ability to pick their "second-in-command."

I know I would prefer someone I am familiar with and trust to help me with my "mission."

Rather that, than accept someone chosen by either my predecessor who might be of a different party, or randomly from a pool of career bureaucrats.

The first group would be a major concern, as having a high likelihood of letting party partisanship affect their viewpoints. The latter in that NOT knowing their affiliation might be letting a "leaker" in the mix. At the very least, I would prefer to interview applicants from the State Dept. pool of qualified personnel.

I find it funny that people seem to think neither the President, nor any Agency head, any Ambassador, etc. should have the right to chose their staff.
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
Are you as a "Very Conservative" participant on DP telling the readers that you really don't give a **** about knowledgeable, patriotic Americans being fired by people who don't actually have a clue about diplomatic relations? That you could care less about the adverse reactions to these people being fired?

"AMERICA FIRST!! We don't need no steenkin' relationships to those furriners!"
Click to expand...

Traditionally, American ambassadors get their appointments due to being massive fundraisers or lending their support in other ways to the winning presidential candidate. There are no requirements for any extra knowledge or experience or for that matter even being able to speak the language(s) used in the country they are ambassadors to.

Given that, no I don't give a rats ass.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, of course some will look at this "negatively," but IMO Ambassadors should have the ability to pick their "second-in-command."

I know I would prefer someone I am familiar with and trust to help me with my "mission." Rather that, than accept someone chosen by either my predecessor who might be of a different party, or randomly from a pool of career bureaucrats.

The first group would be a major concern, as having a high likelihood of letting party partisanship affect their viewpoints. The latter in that NOT knowing their affiliation might be letting a "leaker" in the mix.

I find it funny that people seem to think neither the President, any Agency head, any Ambassador, etc. should NOT have the right to chose their staff.
Click to expand...

second paragraph from the link in OP
Ambassadors have full authority to remove their deputy chief of mission, even without cause, given how important the relationship between an ambassador and his or her deputy is to ensuring the smooth management of an embassy. But the high rate at which it’s happening now reflects how wide the gulf can be between politically appointed ambassadors and the diplomatic corps—an issue laid bare by Trump’s impeachment trial that dragged the State Department into Congressional impeachment investigations. Behind the scenes, some officials fear it is hampering embassies’ abilities to carry out their missions.
Click to expand...
 
Dayton3 said:
Traditionally, American ambassadors get their appointments due to being massive fundraisers or lending their support in other ways to the winning presidential candidate. There are no requirements for any extra knowledge or experience or for that matter even being able to speak the language(s) used in the country they are ambassadors to.

Given that, no I don't give a rats ass.
Click to expand...


SOME ambassadors are big donors to the president, usually in those countries with a high standard of life. Why would a big donor want to be ambassador to Somalia or Sudan or Peru or Mongolia? Don't you think that type of individual would rather be in Paris or Sydney or Rome?
 
Somerville said:
second paragraph from the link in OP
Click to expand...

I read that. Why would you think I hadn't?

The article's "suggestion" is that such activity by new appointees will automatically be a negative to "foreign missions." Yet it does happen all the time; and trying to compare "rates" as a "negative" is just commentary projected as if fact.

My point was made in my last sentence. I stand by it.
 
Trump is draining out the careerists at State to pump in his sewer water.
 
Somerville said:
SOME ambassadors are big donors to the president, usually in those countries with a high standard of life. Why would a big donor want to be ambassador to Somalia or Sudan or Peru or Mongolia? Don't you think that type of individual would rather be in Paris or Sydney or Rome?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. When George H.W. Bush was appointed to be the equivalent of ambassador to China, his wife Barbara was relieved, she had been terrified that he was going to be appointed to the ambassadorship in a European capital.

Why? American ambassadors to major nations such as European ones are expected to do a great deal of entertaining at diplomatic functions AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.

Despite the Bush families wealth, Barbara Bush worried that being an ambassador to one of those nations would greatly strain the Bush family finances.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I read that. Why would you think I hadn't?

The article's "suggestion" is that such activity by new appointees will automatically be a negative to "foreign missions." Yet it does happen all the time; and trying to compare "rates" as a "negative" is just commentary projected as if fact.

My point was made in my last sentence. I stand by it.
Click to expand...

Your point would seem to be that fealty to the president and the ambassador are more important than knowledge of the nation in which the diplomats are serving.
 
Somerville said:
Your point would seem to be that fealty to the president and the ambassador are more important than knowledge of the nation in which the diplomats are serving.
Click to expand...

What YOU call "fealty," I call "TRUST."

If you can't discern the difference, well...that's on you. :coffeepap:
 
Captain Adverse said:
What YOU call "fealty," I call "TRUST."

If you can't discern the difference, well...that's on you. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Fealty is what a soldier gives to his country. Trust is what a soldier gives to his weapon.
 
Somerville said:
second paragraph from the link in OP

...some officials fear it is hampering embassies’ abilities to carry out their missions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You can find "some officials" that disagree with certain actions or policies from any administration... That doesn't mean they are right, or that their opinions should have an effect what a president chooses to do.

This is just another in a long line of never ending stories that are sought out and written by the mainstream news media designed to paint Trump in a negative light. I'm sure there will be several more this week designed exclusively for people just like yourself, so until the next outrage...

.
 
Captain Adverse said:
What YOU call "fealty," I call "TRUST."

If you can't discern the difference, well...that's on you. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...


One is looking up the chain of command and one is looking down. Your choice, but it seems to me that 'trusting' those who are under the president's command over those who have the knowledge to deal with sticky situations just might lead to problems.
 
Some of the responses here would appear to indicate that some believe loyalty to the president is more important than actually having knowledge.

This belief of "loyalty to one over loyalty to the nation" is not a good way forward.
 
Somerville said:
Are you as a "Very Conservative" participant on DP telling the readers that you really don't give a **** about knowledgeable, patriotic Americans being fired by people who don't actually have a clue about diplomatic relations? That you could care less about the adverse reactions to these people being fired?

"AMERICA FIRST!! We don't need no steenkin' relationships to those furriners!"
Click to expand...

Too bad Vindman wasn't booted earlier. I think Trump has just realized how big that swamp was. All those Obama holdovers creating havoc and undermining him like Yovanovich, Vindman, Comey. McCabe. Rosenstein, etal. I bet there are thousands of Obama lefties still there plotting to impeach him.
 
Paradoxical said:
Too bad Vindman wasn't booted earlier. I think Trump has just realized how big that swamp was. All those Obama holdovers creating havoc and undermining him like Yovanovich, Vindman, Comey. McCabe. Rosenstein, etal. I bet there are thousands of Obama lefties still there plotting to impeach him.
Click to expand...

You and others apparently prefer loyalty to your Orange Lord and Master to listening to people with knowledge. No wonder American education is seen as failing.
 
Somerville said:
You and others apparently prefer loyalty to your Orange Lord and Master to listening to people with knowledge. No wonder American education is seen as failing.
Click to expand...

They are Obamaites. Leftists/Marxists/Commies like Brennan and Clapper. They are assassins in waiting.
 
Somerville said:
second paragraph from the link in OP
Click to expand...

But the high rate at which it’s happening now
Click to expand...

Only goes to show you that Trumps foreign policy is just that much more different then Obamas compared to what Obama's was from Bushes.
 
Grim17 said:
You can find "some officials" that disagree with certain actions or policies from any administration... That doesn't mean they are right, or that their opinions should have an effect what a president chooses to do.

This is just another in a long line of never ending stories that are sought out and written by the mainstream news media designed to paint Trump in a negative light. I'm sure there will be several more this week designed exclusively for people just like yourself, so until the next outrage...

.
Click to expand...


Nobody has to seek out things that put trump in a negative light, he lets the world know everyday that he is a phony, narcissistic conman that could not be trusted to hold his wife's purse at the mall...
 
Somerville said:
SOME ambassadors are big donors to the president, usually in those countries with a high standard of life. Why would a big donor want to be ambassador to Somalia or Sudan or Peru or Mongolia? Don't you think that type of individual would rather be in Paris or Sydney or Rome?
Click to expand...

We should do away with political appointees as ambassadors and do what most other advanced countries do and use career diplomats... It's pretty stupid to appoint someone, often with no real international experience, to represent the US in other countries.
 
Paradoxical said:
They are Obamaites. Leftists/Marxists/Commies like Brennan and Clapper. They are assassins in waiting.
Click to expand...

Haha, can you imagine how many Trump supporter's heads will explode if a Jew become POTUS. It might not be quite as bad as when a brown skinned man became POTUS, but it won't be far behind.

All those "very fine people" as Trump likes to describe them will be holding a lot more Unite the Right rallies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom