[csh0]

I think it’s fair to say that diplomats appear to be appointed under a two-faced system.

On the one side you have some diplomats who really are quite capable career foreign policy wonks, appointed in a manner which appears to be meritocratic.

On the other side you have folks appointed, like you mention, as a kind of patronage.

Traditionally, it has been that the softer counterparties (Friendly countries, European allies, small island nations, etc) are staffed with patrons while the more difficult or geopolitically sensitive relationships are manned by professionals, but this is certainly not always true, and one can find many counterexamples.

[msy]

The patrons are doing an excellent job of adding to the 'more difficult' list.

[orwin]

Okay, thanks for the added details (and your sibling too), today I've learned something.

[stanford_labrat]

some added context (both my parents are/were in the Foreign Service):

your location is assigned based on a competitive bidding system where you select from a list of cities to do your next tour. some countries/cities are obviously dangerous for a variety of reasons and they are called "hardship tours" (think iraq or afghanistan). you get bonus money for these and sometimes are forbidden from bringing family.

posts in places like Europe or East Asia are very desirable and highly competitive. but often it's a matter of fit. my dad was a hedge fund manager before the Foreign Service so his first posting was actually in Frankfurt. you can also do a tour in the continental US, such as in DC or NY. because of his economics background he has done a few of those.

most of the time the head ambassador is a political appointee, but the grunts are regular people who have made this their career.