About a third of U.S. ambassadors generally are political appointees. They haven’t come up through the ranks of diplomats with career experience serving the U.S. in foreign countries.

Some political appointees are well-suited to their jobs—having worked in international jobs or in other positions giving them experience in international relations.

Many, however, are appointed because they gave money to the political party in power. These appointments are a remnant of the old spoils system of political largesse. The appointees may know little about the culture of the countries where they will serve, but view their appointment as a kind of paid excursion for a foreign holiday.

What if generals were appointed based on how much money they spent on a presidential campaign? What if, say, a general in charge of U.S. forces in Europe was appointed because of leading in campaign contributions in Illinois for the president? Suppose the general in charge of U.S. forces in the Pacific was appointed because of contributing the most money to a candidate in a Florida race?

We expect our military leaders to be experienced in military matters. We should also expect our international representatives to be experienced in international relations.