With much of the world wondering what President Bush will do in his second term, perhaps the best place to search for early clues is personnel. Nothing is more revealing, and, in the long run, nothing may be more important.

In this context, it is interesting to consider the names that have emerged so far – mostly in the form of unconfirmed but seemingly accurate leaks – as Condoleezza Rice picks a new team at the State Department. So far, she has opted primarily for outstanding career diplomats and professionals, not ideologues or partisan political appointees, especially in the critical regional assistant secretary jobs.

Robert Zoellick, a veteran Republican foreign policy hand who is currently the U.S. trade negotiator, has already been nominated for deputy secretary of state.

Other names that have reportedly gone to the White House for final approval include several senior career diplomats: Nicholas Burns, currently ambassador to NATO, as undersecretary of state, the department’s third-ranking position; Daniel Fried, now a senior National Security Council official, or Eric Edelman, now ambassador to Turkey and previously a staffer for Vice President Cheney, as assistant secretary of state for European affairs; David Welch, ambassador to Egypt, as assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs; and Chris Hill, ambassador to South Korea, to head the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

Full disclosure: I have worked closely with all five of the professional diplomats on this list; Mr. Zoellick is a friend. All have served presidents of both parties loyally, and they are among the very best professionals of the current generation. Their nominations may offer an important indication of the kind of foreign policy that Ms. Rice (and Mr. Bush) want to conduct: more centrist, oriented toward problem-solving, essentially non-ideological, and focused on traditional diplomacy as a way to improve America’s shaky image and relationships around the world.

These men believe in American values and a strong, even assertive, foreign policy – but they are not what the right and neoconservative wings of the Republican Party wanted in a post-Colin Powell State Department; for years, Mr. Powell’s critics predicted political appointees in a second term, especially for the regional assistant secretary positions. In a second Bush term, they said, they would not only get rid of Mr. Powell but would purge disloyal career Foreign Service officers from the building.

Richard Perle even gave a certain ersatz specificity to the problem; only 15% of the Foreign Service, he said publicly, was loyal to Mr. Bush. These men are neither weak nor, as Newt Gingrich charged in a brutal 2003 Foreign Policy article attacking the State Department, have they ever “abdicated values and principle in favor of accommodation and passivity.”

There is irony galore if these nominations are the beginning of even a partial pattern (there will certainly be plenty of conservative political appointees to come). In 2001, Mr. Powell, a genuine American hero, was widely hailed by the careerists at State as their savior. But things did not turn out quite as expected; Mr. Powell constantly felt undercut by the White House and the Pentagon, and the White House in turn frequently felt that Mr. Powell was not sufficiently loyal. Even worse, neither side made any secret of its feelings.

These problems will not exist with Ms. Rice, whose close relationship with Mr. Bush will give her enormous credibility with foreign governments and greater standing within the administration. Although there will surely still be serious State-Pentagon disagreements, Ms. Rice will not have to constantly watch her back at the NSC, where her replacement is her deputy, Steve Hadley. Such a configuration has only one precedent: Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s second national security adviser was his deputy, Brent Scowcroft. (His first, of course, was himself, when he held both jobs, but that will never happen again.)

There is another important, if less visible, tea leaf: In private meetings with foreign ambassadors and other visitors, Ms. Rice has indicated that one of her top priorities will be to rebuild America’s image and relations with key friends and allies. She has also said that she will travel more than her predecessor did and has delicately suggested that State will play a larger policy role than it did in the past four years.

These putative appointments raise several key questions: First, do they foreshadow a major second-term movement toward, if you will, a kinder, gentler foreign policy?

Second, will counterbalancing senior State appointments – especially the high-profile ambassadorship to the United Nations – be given to allies of Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld?

Third, will there be continued internal warfare pitting State against Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld, or will a more pragmatic, mainstream approach – favored by Mr. Powell but never quite successful – prevail under Ms. Rice? Finally, will Mr. Bush, who tolerated (and often seemed to ignore) that internal conflict in his first term, allow it to continue?

Only events will answer these questions. We must await more appointments, a determination of Mr. Rumsfeld’s future and, above all, clarification of the administration’s muddled policy in Iraq. But the early signs are, to say the least, interesting.

Mr. Holbrooke, an ambassador to the United Nations during the Clinton administration, writes a monthly column for The Washington Post.