undefined | Better HN

0 pointscyberferret9y ago0 comments

Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case).

A changing of the guard in these roles is (as the article I posted pointed out) the norm.

However, In the current case, no one knows who the replacement is, or when he/she will be taking on the role, thus leaving us officially without an ambassador for the foreseeable future, and also resulting in the longest gap in 70 odd years that we have not had an official ambassador.

0 comments

Vivtek9y ago

It's pro forma for the ambassadors from the outgoing administration to proffer their resignation effective noon on Inauguration Day. The incoming president then says, no, no, please stay on until we have your replacement set up.

A transition team who knows these things would have done that - the Trump team, though, since he was not actually expecting a transition, had no idea how to run one. And accepted all the resignations.

This is the same reason the commander of the D.C. National Guard was dismissed at noon on the same day.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

masonic9y ago

  The incoming president then says, no, no, please stay on until we have your replacement set up.

... which constitutes a rejection of the resignation. Later, when a replacement is confirmed, what happens if the offer to resign is not repeated? Do ambassadors get normal Civil Service protections?

realityking9y ago

Amassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them at will.

John238329y ago

"Which is more culpable: stupidity or malice?"

Vivtek9y ago

I wish current events didn't leave us needing to answer that question. I don't have a ready answer.

gozur889y ago

I don't think it actually matters in the short run. Career FSOs do the actual work in embassies, which is why you see big campaign donors and mid-level party hacks appointed as ambassadors to all but the most powerful countries.

candiodari9y ago

> Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case).

Unless I'm misremembering, that wasn't the case. Obama was appointing ambassadors regularly for a few months.

Godel_unicode9y ago

Not an appointee, but it's worth noting that there is a deputy chief of mission at every diplomatic post. This person is always a career diplomat with extensive experience, and is in place for precisely this reason. To take over and run the mission until a politically appointed ambassador is present.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointscyberferret9y ago0 comments

Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case).

A changing of the guard in these roles is (as the article I posted pointed out) the norm.

0 comments

Vivtek9y ago

This is the same reason the commander of the D.C. National Guard was dismissed at noon on the same day.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

masonic9y ago

  The incoming president then says, no, no, please stay on until we have your replacement set up.

realityking9y ago

Amassadors serve at the pleasure of the president, he can fire them at will.

John238329y ago

"Which is more culpable: stupidity or malice?"

Vivtek9y ago

I wish current events didn't leave us needing to answer that question. I don't have a ready answer.

gozur889y ago

candiodari9y ago

> Point taken, but I believe when Obama did it, there was already someone appointed to take the outgoing ambassadors place immediately (at least, here, it was the case).

Unless I'm misremembering, that wasn't the case. Obama was appointing ambassadors regularly for a few months.

Godel_unicode9y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse