It is said that American ambassadors are direct representatives of the
president. To what degree do they carry the president's authority in
the countries to which they are posted?

As a career Navy officer (1962-83), I was on loan to the State Dept
for three years as naval liaison officer posted to the US Consulate
General, Nassau, Bahamas (1970-73). As such, I reported directly to
the US Consul General, a career foreign service officer (FSO). He
reported to State Dept superiors, not to the White House. In that
sense his authority was derived differently from that exercised by
officers having ambassadorial rank.

Ambassadors are of two types: career FSOs given the rank of ambassador
and political/presidential appointees. Both are regarded, however, as
direct representatives of the president and, therefore, would
presumably report to the president, with a dotted line relationship to
the State Dept. Is this true in practice?

If US ambassadors are indeed the senior US reps in the countries to
which they are posted, do they have unilateral authority over American
military commanders also posted there, and, if not, why not?

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 17 Aug 2005 16:21 PDT

I do hope one of the Google researchers knows more than I do about this subject.

Nautico,
From everything I can find, ambassadors report to the State Dept.  The
next to last site is about Powell?s reorganization.  The last one
tells that Rice?s new man in Iraq reports directly to her (and that
his predecessor reported up the chain).  Whether politically appointed
ambassadors report directly to the president:  I doubt it and hope not
(and hope the Secretary gives them an aide to keep them in line and
him/herself informed).
So it is not like in the days of Franklin and Jefferson in Paris.

Do they have unilateral authority over US troops in the country?
On the milnet site, it says that State expresses it as ?works very
closely?.  Another site says that in Iraq the military reported to the
military chain of command, but that is a very special situation, and
the fact that Rumsfeld (I believe) made the statement, implies that it
is/was recognized as an exceptional situation.
Another site explains that when the Army wanted to send troops from
Afghanistan into Pakistan, the ambassador refused permission (so he
was asked) to avoid possible local public response that could overturn
the fragile government.

It rather seems that State and Defense fight for the turf.  The 1st
globalsecurity site is a Marine Corps paper about the lack of
coordination in the Philippines in the early 90s.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/United-States-Department-of-Defense
http://www.milnet.com/defdep.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/SGS.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/41-10_2000/ch4.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/SOM-Pentagon-Bypass24feb05.htm
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/20040620_quiet_transfer.html


http://www.cfr.org/pub6431/james_m_lindsay_ivo_h_daalder/revitalizing_the_state_department.php
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11865

A very interesting question, and apparently the responsibility is not
as clear and fast as one would have hoped.

Regards, Myoarin

"A very interesting question, and apparently the responsibility is not
as clear and fast as one would have hoped."

Roger that. As is usually the case in any official hierarchy, much
depends on personalities when it comes to questions of authority and
reporting relationships. If the ambassador is a close personal friend
of the president, then he or she will have more de facto unilateral
authority than, say, a career FSO who's come up the ranks. I continue
to believe, however, that all US ambassadors, at least in theory,
derive their authority directly from the president and not from the
Secretary of State. Over time, practical considerations have probably
served to shift the real reporting relationship to the latter.

Yes, in theory, no doubt, but US officers also receive their
commission from the president, which certainly doesn't give them any
right to buck the chain of command.
You might like this story from our alma mater.  In the mid 60s I met a
grad student who had completed his ROTC service and also had an Irish
name common in the State's and national politics.  When he arrived at
his first assignment, he was surprised that he was called aside and
taken by car to headquarters and ushered to the general's office. 
Before he could remember whether he should salute or stop two steps
before the general's desk, the latter came around and shook his hand
and hoped that he had had a good trip.  After a bit of small talk, the
general delicately asked if he was related to that family.
The young lt. admitted that he wasn't, telling me that it was a great
mistake, that he should have just said:  "only to exchange Christmas
cards," or the like.
Luckily that was in Germany and not Vietnam.

"Yes, in theory, no doubt, but US officers also receive their
commission from the president, which certainly doesn't give them any
right to buck the chain of command."

But the operative question is whether the Sec of State is actually in
the chain of command between an ambassador and the president. Although
it has surely evolved that way, no doubt because of the large number
of our ambassadors around the globe (200+), I do believe that any US
ambassador retains the right to communicate directly with the
president. That option would be open in the event of an emergency,
though in this high tech age, such communications would probably take
the form of a cable to the National Military Command Center (ensuring
immediate delivery to the White House situation room), with a copy to
SECSTATE.

Yes Sir,  ;)
One of the sites referred to the Ambassador's Procedural Handbook, but
my search for it only returned me to that site.  And it is probably
classified.

But now I've found the formula:  "reports to the President via the
Secretary of State".

http://www.historycentral.com/Civics/f.html
"Foreign Service - part of the Department of State. The Foreign
Service has thousands of ambassadors and staff members, who are
trained to represent the United States in embassies, missions, liaison
offices, consulates and other agencies in the United States and
throughout the world. Ambassadors report to the President via the
Secretary of State. They are responsible for implementing US civilian
foreign policy within the countries to which they are assigned."

The following says the same, but you may enjoy(?) the whole text,
perhaps the reason for your question:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000619.html
"MR. McCLELLAN: -- you have ambassadors, ambassadors report to the
President through the Secretary of State. That's just the process
that's set up. And when you have an ambassador at the United Nations,
I think it's long worked that way, that the ambassador reports through
the Secretary of State to the President of the United States."

This briefing says the same,

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2003/24958.htm
"MR. BOUCHER: Let me, first, check and see if your description is
accurate. Second of all, I would note that all ambassadors report to
the President, that he is their -- they are envoys of the President,
and they report through the Assistant Secretary and Secretary of
State."

"But the operative question is whether the Sec of State is actually in
the chain of command between an ambassador and the president."

You tell me; you're closer to Foggy Bottom and diplomatic circles than I am.
I bet Condi Rice thinks State is actually in the chain, and all career
FSOs also, and probably address all their correspondence accordingly. 
(Or do they preserve the formality of addressing them to the
President?  I doubt it.)
And if an Ambassador did address a missive to the President (via the Secretary), 
would it be delivered to him  - and with what comment?
That is pretty much the subject of the McClellan interview.

It's been very interesting, but is still unclear.  I hope you have an
insider whom you can ask.

Myoarin

I think that ambassadors seek to preserve the tradition of reporting
to the president on matters of the highest importance, but, if they
are at all savvy, keep the Sec of State in the loop. On matters more
routine, I'm sure they report to the State Dept and without
"bothering" the White House. You're right: I do hope one of the Google
researchers knows more than I do about this subject.