Grading the Trump appointees

Now, let's move on to unpack another grade, as has been requested.
Hegseth for Secretary of Defense deserves a failing grade, for several reasons.
One, the Secretary of Defense is responsible for managing 3 million employees, an annual budget of nearly a trillion dollars, and is 2nd only to the president in being responsible for protecting the nation.
Hegseth has never led any organization larger than a couple of hundred people, has zero C-suite executive experience, has zero budgeting experience of any significant dollar amount, and had a rather unremarkable military career.
The entrenched power brokers within the defense department will out-think him, out-maneuver him, and will easily out-influence him because he is simply not strong or accomplished enough for them to take him seriously.
Two, this appears to be another one of Trump's famously impulsive decisions - which is the very thing that has back-fired on him previously several times.
Hegseth was rejected when considered for an under-secretary role 8 years ago - and his resume has not improved since.
It is also being reported that Trump did not think the decision was serious enough to even consult his own chief-of-staff, who was completley blindsided by the appointment.
Nor does it appear that any vetting was done - other than Trump watching Fox News - since it has now been revealed that Hegseth paid off his sexual assault accuser as a means to avoid criminal prosecution.
While Hegseth has been correct about calling out the DEI stupidity within the defense department and how that weakens the lethality of our military, that is hardly a qualification for this role - and yet it appears that is the only deciding basis on which Trump made his decision.
Third, the nation must come above all things when a president selects a Secretary of Defense.
Not one of our adversaries would take Hegseth seriously and having him in the role would immediately weaken our standing in the world - including among our allies.
The job requires a president to make every effort to make the best choice, consult trusted advisors - and not act on a whim.
While most reasonable people can see reform is needed, no honest person can claim Hegseth is a serious and qualified appointment.
America deserves better.

One, Hegseth is correct that DEI should have no place in the military and is dangerous to our national security.
But, since most elementary school children could easily grasp that obvious truth, that realization does not qualify him to be Secretary of Defense.
Two, Hegseth has claimed he was chased out of the military for his political beliefs.
Hardly the mark of a reformer and "warrior" to simply walk away as he did.
Change is hard - "writing a book' (insert name of probable ghostwriter here) is an easy out. 
Three, your claim that I have supported the current "leadership" in the Pentagon is simply a flat-out falsehood on your part - since in the post above I specifically stated that reform is needed. 
But reform can only be accomplished when serious and qualified appointments are made. 
Hegseth is not one - and you know that. 

Nowhere have I stated, or even implied, that one must be from inside a dysfunctional organization in order to have the ability to change it. 
While it is certainly possible for someone embedded in an organization for a long period of time to be an effective change agent, my 40 years of experience informs me that it is more often the case that systemic change is best effectuated by someone outside of the organization. 
Which is why I approve of many of Trump's picks.
Some have a record of producing reform, change, innovation, efficiency, and honestly challenging the status quo (including for example - in one way or another - Musk, Ramaswamy, Zeldin, Stefanik, and RFK Jr.).
Gabbard, Gaetz, and Hegseth do not.
Two (Gabbard, Gaetz) are self-serving, unprincipled political hacks who are far more like those they seek to replace than they are different. 
Further, neither of those two were selected to introduce change at all - but rather to replace the political corruption of the competing party with political corruption of their own. 
The third, Hegseth, has a record of shallowness, weakness, lack of stature, and lack of accomplishment which not only makes him woefully unqualified for the basic functions of the job - but also makes it extremely unlikely that he would be able to produce meaningful change. 
Trump can - and should - do better if he truly wants to have a meaningful and impactful presidency.
If he lacks the will or the intelligence to withdraw those 3, the Senate should do him - and the nation - the great service of rejecting them. 

As an FYI, you show your lack of perception since DEI is instituted throughout the federal government.  Hegseth served ove 20 years and yet the armchair warrior ME Ville is critical of his service.  How many years did you serve and what wars did you fight in?  Finally, those in charge in the military are of the ilk you suggest should be nominated.  

Looking back through history, I seem to remember a certain colonel in the Virginia militia being named the Commander in Chief of all colonial forces and eventually defeating the most powerful military in the world at that time. His name was George Washington. Using your criteria, he should have never been given such a vaunted position because he wasn't an insider and in reality, his military career wasn't particularly distinguished to that point.

Sometimes an insider is the LAST person you need in an organization, especially when reform is the primary goal. There will be plenty of experienced people under Hegseth to implement his decisions. The trick will be in keeping an eye on them so that they do what he orders and not what they want. If your goal is to clear a swamp, you don't hire one of the current denizens of that swamp to do the job.  

Who appointed you the Master of Determination of what are acceptable or unacceptable qualifications?
Again, you are stating opinions, not facrs.