As reported in TheNation on Dec16, under pressure from Republicans to cut costs, the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has launched a reform of US diplomacy that will turn ambassadors into corporate-like CEOs tasked with helping a country develop and avoid armed conflict. Well, if she really wanted to cut costs, she should have started with the crazy men in the White House who start costly misadventures that spread death and destruction around the globe and bring home body bags and maimed soldiers, apart from wasting hundreds of billions of dollars of their taxpayers hard-earned money. But I suppose they are too big for her and she can do only what she can do, which is to make a very modest start. However, even this small step seems to be 'flawed. Armament manufacturers are one of the biggest donors to the campaign funds of politicians in the US and to repay them, the US leaders are 'obliged to create and expand conflicts in a big way so that their benefactors, the arms manufacturers, can recover their investment and make hefty profits. So, how could the US political set-up dare even to dream of avoiding armed conflicts, and thus cut the very hand that feeds it and keeps it going? There is another snag. Will the host countries allow US ambassadors unhindered access to all sectors and all segments of society? S.R.H. HASHMI, Karachi, December 16.