I’ve never been a fan of Bill O’Reilly. But I must admit that as of late, seeing him now and then on News Nation, I find some of his opinions interesting. A few nights back, I found some of his opinions about some of Trump’s unconventional cabinet choices and selections of people for other high-ranking posts to maybe make sense — at least from Trump’s vantage point.

Unless I misunderstood O’Reilly, I think he was saying that it’s irrelevant whether those people have the qualifications to fill the slots for which the president-elect is recommending them. In a sort of de facto fashion, he will fill their jobs and determine what they do.

Granted, president-elect Trump can put forward nominees to fill his Cabinet and other important posts in the federal government. Is he thumbing his nose at the Democratic Party? And is his list of candidates a test to determine the loyalty of GOP senators? If you’re really loyal to me, you’ll rubber stamp my choices. 

Qualifications and experience be damned: Only two requirements are required: No. 1: Each recommended candidate must be absolutely loyal to Donald Trump; No. 2: Each must be a dedicated “watcher” of all the employees under their purview and be ready to report back to the president even the slightest hint of disloyalty to the Donald. 

Consider the following two choices: Fox News personality Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense and former Florida GOP congressman Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, the nation’s top law-enforcement officer. 

Following Trump’s nomination, Gaetz resigned from the house suddenly, sensing that the guys with the tar and feathers, some them his fellow Republicans, were closing in on him. 

Here’s my take on this shaky duo that Trump nominated— with an alhaigian  caveat: These are my personal opinions; the Corner has always been that and in no way has it ever been put forth as an editorial stance of The Brookings Register. That being said, I begin with a Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot — on both these Trump choices. Give me a break. 

First Hegseth. Yes, he is a decorated military veteran, with awards that include two Bronze Stars. Commendable, but I’d like to read the accompanying citations. While commendable, his military decorations are irrelevant to his qualifications — or lack of them — for heading a department that has a budget of more than $800 billion and  a total of 1.3 million active duty military; 811,000 Guard  and Reserve; and 750,000 civilians. It’s the federal government’s largest agency and its largest employer.

One of Hegseth’s key personal beliefs is that women should not serve in combat. Tell that to Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a double amputee who lost both legs in combat in Iraq in 2004 when the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting was downed by a rocket-propelled grenade. Now a retired lieutenant colonel in the Illinois National Guard, her military decorations include: Air Medal; Army Commendation Medal; Purple Heart and Dame Grand Cross (First Class) of the Order of the Crown of Thailand.

The United States armed forces have deployed women in combat zones for more than 20 years. And women are now filling slots that would have been unattainable for them maybe two decades ago. The Navy has a woman in command of an aircraft carrier. As far as I know it’s fulfilling its mission and hasn’t run aground. Several women have attained four-star rank; some have gone on to be combatant commanders. In May 2016, Lori Robinson, the second to be promoted to four-star general, became the first woman to head a combatant command: in this instance, commander of NORAD and NORCOM.

I think Hegseth would have a hard time returning the no-women-in-combat train back to the station, since it left more than 20 years ago. But would the commander-in-chief back him if he tried? 

It’s no secret that Trump’s relations with the military have been a bit rocky at times.

Looking back at Trump’s first secretary of defense, one can see in retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis a man of talent, integrity and  loyalty — to the office of the presidency — but with no hint of the sycophantic loyalty that Trump expects of the people around him. The president saw that at a cabinet meeting in June 2017.

Those in attendance poured gushing praise on Trump for the wonderful job he was doing.  Mattis did not. Rather, he praised the men and women of America’s armed forces and called it an honor “to represent the men and women of the Department of Defense.”

The United States throughout its history has expected its military leaders to be above the fray of politics. Perhaps that was better said and has a better and more far reaching meaning in the words of Gen. Mark Milley, at his retirement ceremony when he stepped down as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September 2023: “We don’t take an oath to a king or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We take an oath to the Constitution, and we take an oath to the idea that is America and we’re willing to die to protect it.”

Now for a few less than laudatory words about Gaetz. From all I’ve read and heard,  this guy’s — in the simplest of terms — a scoundrel. Check him out online. 

Many of his fellow GOP lawmakers see him as unfit for the post Trump wants to put him in. But the president-elect seems willing to take them on in a show of loyalty. 

Are we looking at a possible showdown between Trump and his fellow Republicans? Might we see some profiles in courage?

Have a nice day.