Right after the American Revolution the duties of an American ambassador or consul to a foreign country was mainly negotiating trade and debt, keeping our drunken sailors and marines out of jail and actively representing the benefits of democracy throughout the world.

In one famous case the American consul in the extremely jittery colony of Bermuda promised in return for better trade opportunities that he would not allow the sailors and missionaries to hand out anti-Crown leaflets. These leaflets, copies are still in the Smithsonian, called for the citizens and residents of Bermuda to throw out the British and even at this early date to end slavery.

But the mission statement of the Department of State is both broad and specific. The staff are required, among many duties, to serve as the public representatives of the US. This also means going on TV as much say as the German Ambassador to the US has been on C-Span the last few years.

But if you want to wade through the boilerplate the requiremnts of the US mission are, as noted earlier, general and policy specific.

http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/dosstrat/2004/23503.htm



Now whether the staff is competent, to attempt the kind of effective outreach exemplified by Eric Staal, can probably be answered in the negative. My own experiences with the US Embassy in London some years ago, so I can't speak on its current staff or competence, suggested that the bulk of the American staff were simply punching their ticket for a return to Wasington, the beneficiaries of daddy's campaign largess or well-connected party people.

I certainly hope most of my nation's current ambassadorial and consulate staffs are not so thin-skinned. Note I said, "...some years ago." Plus the party people I was referring to were not political parties but the kind that say a young staffer might go to after work in the West End or specifically the night spots around the Sloane Square area. I'm sorry if Consul-at-Arms is offended but I will repeat that many of the younger Americans, though probably well qualified, I met were in London, mainly due to either political or family connections, instead of say some less hospitable place in the world where English was still spoken.

I should have added that at that time the most professional and competent people I met were Kingman Brewster, the Marine guards, the British subjects and the one lone Irish citizen protecting and working in the embassy. But since I didn't really have a chance to meet all the American staff I will admit that my criticisms could have been too harsh.

I can say two things in defense of Germany foreign policy that I think could contribute and will continue to contribute some hard feelings on behalf of many Americans. The first, in that Germany does indeed spend more of, for want of a better word, on social welfare than the US as both a percentage of the budget(70%) and on a per capita basis. But the German budget is almost 50% to total GDP and unless the Germans turn into flat tax fiends or supply-siders overnight the government simply will not be able to spend any more on defense. There would have to be a huge jump in GDP and then subsequent tax revenues that would allow the government to spend less as a percentage of social programs but the same or more on a per capita basis. For example, 70% of the current $1.344 trillion budget is not the same as say 60% of say $2 trillion.

But since this unlikely and the government is convinced that voters want more social spending and are generally hostile to defense spending except for economic reasons, then the hopes of the US for a more robust German presence in the world is simply delusional. And unfortunately this tends to create the kind of friction that damages relations between two countries that have the same strategic and idelistic goals in common.

The second, is that Germany is simply not strategically important any more as it no longer represents a forward frontier vs. hostile powers, ie., the old Warsaw Pact and even the tactically enfeebled Russia(Mexico with missiles I believe was one description). It, Germany, does not possess any geographic chokeholds that are currently important and it has absolutely no sustainable global physical presence, ie., overseas bases, strategic weapons, strategic air power or a blue water fleet. Germany is being asked by the US, at least publicly, to be a global power yet in all reality does not have the economic capability and doesn't really see itself in any real danger. At least the kind of danger that can't be dealt with either through law enforcement or short over the horizon expeditionary forces.

Germany needs to figure out how to proceed, to have a foreign policy that reflects its economic clout and asperations, as well as satisfying it still current treaty obligations. I believe Zyme(if not my apologies) has argued that NATO is a relic and should be disbanded. I think that Poland, Estonia, Romania and other East European nations are proceeding as if that is a fact and our signing or want to sign individual pacts with the US in addition to their NATO obligations. I fear that these nations do not trust or think that NATO has that capability any more and are essentially joining up with the biggest kid on the block(or for some, the bully on the block) for protection.