Kelly sounds like he would make a great … Defense Secretary.
No, I mean it. The article is full of paeans for Kelly about how he understands the risks of combat, how his family has sacrificed for war (his son was killed in Afghanistan), and about his long and distinguished military record.
Except … DHS isn't a branch of the military. It's a civilian agency, responsible for antiterrorism, border security, immigration and customs, cybersecurity, and disaster prevention and management.
Unless, of course, there's some intent to militarize those functions.
He's also against women in combat roles (which I assume won't apply to DHS) and was a mixed bag in his oversight of Guantanamo and its detainees (which I certainly hope won't apply to DHS).
This is the third Trump nominee/appointee who has had a professional career in the military. That's kind of interesting, too.
Trump expected to tap Kelly to head DHS
The retired Marine Corps general, who lost a son in Afghanistan, had said he would be willing to serve under either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.
More on Kelly here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-marine-gen-john-f-kelly-picked-to-head-department-of-homeland-security/2016/12/07/165472f2-bbe6-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html He's apparently a border hawk, which was likely his primary qualification.
Military rule is on its way
Kelly isn't that worrisome. Honestly, he and Mattis are likely the least problematic names on Trump's list of appointees. Flynn (the other military guy) is a dangerous lunatic, but those two other military names are probably the best of the lot (he said, damning with faint praise).
+Doyce Testerman Agreed on both of them, with the caveats of (a) I think the 7-year rule for DoD is important and shouldn't be cast aside lightly, and (b) Kelly running a domestic, civilian security agency is a bit worrisome in and of itself (when your professional mindset is a hammer, every problem gets treated like a nail).
But both sound less insane than most of the other choices.
DHS is civilian, but … there are a loooooot of sections within the DHS where people carry guns and shoot at stuff. And generals are, at least in theory, more about strategy and planning. So… I mean, I can see it.
I don't LIKE it, but by comparison…
+Doyce Testerman The strategy and planning thing, sure. But law enforcement and military operations have a very different mindset and purpose, which is one reason why we don't mix them up in this country except in an emergency.
Still, again, that's a more philosophical worry than, say, the swarms of bees we have for EPA and Labor and Justice (among others).
And education! Musn't forget education!
Oh, yeah. She's a hot mess, but there's actually less harm she can do there in a normal cabinet officer's time — a lot of school stuff is still state/local focused, and the bureaucracy is pretty entrenched. (Less harm, not no harm, of course.)