Bill, I agree that substantive knowledge is not enough to run an embassy. I also think that State does not teach management skills (unlike the military that does)effectively if at all. I do not think Ambassador Davis was a manager. He was smart enough to choose a career deputy who managed the relatively easy to run embassy who himself had an excellent admin counselor and Swiss staff to make it run like clock work. Substance was left to econ and pol and the Davis' did the PR work. Is this an effective use of the taxpayers money? I can't answer that question. But unlike certain other political appointees who brought nothing to the table the Davis' did and with aplomb.

Me too. Sadly some will never get it.

Lafcadio - thank you. Pat

Hi Dave, I guess that's part of my question: how important is population percentage to a country's international power or standing? Maybe not much. But there are so many ways political scientists and economists attempt to measure power it's hard to say. Re the US: I think I would have agreed with you far more during the Bush II administration but I think Obama has been far more judicious in terms of using (or not) the US military and also much more willing to work with the traditional allies in dealing with conflicts around the globe. This, of course, infuriates the America firsters but, of course, no country, including the US can go it alone and succeed.

Lafcadio - It's probably too complex for the media to report - and it could also be seen as a bit like playing inside baseball. I've been told of a lot of repugnant admin practices at State - both when I worked at USIA and then after retiring. Excellent questions: I agree. Thanks for your well founded response.