How does a Gold Star retired General with a sterling 4 star military career that includes, overseeing the U.S. military prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, and being the first Marine colonel since 1951 to be promoted to brigadier general while in active combat, take a job in civilian life where he insults a Gold Star widow, lies and slanders a Congresswoman and justifies people who committed treason against America to facilitate slavery as good people of conscience.
4 Star General John Kelly served in the military for nearly five decades and served in positions including chief of Southern Command, senior assistant to the secretary of defense and legislative liaison to Congress, and he served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had only been retired from the military eight months when he was tapped after the 2016 Presidential election to run the Department of Homeland Security. In July President Trump appointed him to replace Reince Priebus as his Chief of Staff.
Since Gen. Kelly’s appointment, there have been debacles on the Charlottesville unrest, a failed health-care effort, an ill-conceived decertification strategy on the Iran deal and a never-ending stream of attacks on the media, leading many to feel the Trump administration has gone steadily downhill. His recent White House Press Room appearance to defend President Trump’s treatment of a Gold Star widow, raised the question of whether or not he was calming or contributing to the chaos in the White House. His appearance this week on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, where he proclaimed slave-owners as “honorable” people of conscience convinced truly honorable people of conscience, that John Kelly is the wrong person to be Chief of Staff.
Colonel Robert Killebrew, U.S. Army (Ret.) a fellow member of the great 1% who keeps us safe and guarantees our democracy, offers the best explanation of the political and civilian administrative lapses of Gen. Kelly, in a column he wrote:
On Gen. Kelly’s veiled accusation that true Americans are the 1% who serve in the military- Let’s be frank. There’s nothing “glorious” or “sacrificial” about choosing to be a soldier. We give up personal freedom for the privilege of serving our country, and we enter a closed-off profession that is enormously satisfying but can also be physically, emotionally, and intellectually demanding. We accept the risk that some of us get killed or wounded. In return, the country gives us decent pay, an early retirement — some bodies get pretty broken up in twenty or thirty years — and health care. It’s not a bad deal. We chose the life we lived. Being part of the “one percent” doesn’t make us any more entitled than any other citizen. We are privileged to serve, not the other way around.
Why ex-military officials might not be the best fit in a political bureaucracy– few of us quite fit into the “dishonest, disorganized and glorious” mess that is American democracy. That makes us good bureaucrats and maybe good chiefs of staff, but not someone who has a gut-level understanding of democracy — the role of a free press, for example, or the give and take of backroom dealing. A MacArthur or a George Patton, disdainful or ignorant of democracy but close to the president is dangerous to the Republic.
The advice Col. Killebrew says he received from a wise old retired Marine colonel sums it up best: the longer you stay in uniform, the less you will really understand about the country you protect. Democracy is the antithesis of the military life; it’s chaotic, dishonest, disorganized, and at the same time glorious, exhilarating and free — which you are not. After a while, if you stay in, you’ll be tempted to say, “Look, you civilians, we’ve got a better way. We’re better organized. We’re patriotic, and we know what it is to sacrifice. Be like us.” And you’ll be dead wrong, son. If you’re a career soldier, you may defend democracy, but you won’t understand it or be part of it. What’s more, you’ll always be a stranger to your own society. That’s the sacrifice you’ll be making.
Col. Killebrew and his wise old colonel have explained all but the most troubling aspect of civilian no-star John Kelly, the character of the man. What does it say about the character of a man when confronted with proof positive that he misspoke, even if due to mistaken memory, but boldly refuses to acknowledge it? The misspoke becomes a lie which is violation number 1 of the military Honor Code. What does it say about the character of a man who suggests that there could be a compromise that allows white human beings to enslave and treat black human beings as chattel?
What it says is that 4 Star General John Kelly should force no star chief of staff john kelly to resign IMMEDIATELY!