For everyone putting their trust in a retired general to prevent nuclear war I’d suggest they go back and look at the Korean and Vietnam wars where the joint chiefs considered the use of tactical nukes.
True, though they ultimately didn't, and I think it's also true that many in the army swing Republican and are probably as right wing and narrow-minded as the common stereotype. I reckon there's a few that aren't though, or at least a few that, while they may on the whole vote Republican as opposed to Democrat, are still pretty intelligent, sane individuals, and are likely not over-enamoured with the idea of having young men and women die needlessly at the behest of a draft-dodging lunatic.
I think, to reach the upper echelons of any of the US military branches, you have to have a fair degree of intelligence and competence - it's not like the old days of the British army where any idiotic aristo with enough family money could simply buy a commission and become a general overnight, and I think the popular view of all generals as being war-hungry Jack D Ripper types is likely to be pretty far from the actual truth.
Again, I'm not suggesting that Kelly is any type of crusading anti-Trump hero, merely saying that I think it's possible he may be a bit of a moderating influence on the president. I'd certainly trust him more than sycophantic Christian zealots like Pence and Devos, or the slimier side of white nationalism like Bannon or Gorka. I don't think that Jiminy Cricket, myself, or others are saying that we think Kelly's some type of heroic wonderboy type who's on a one man mission to save humanity from Trumpian excesses, merely that we can see a scenario wherein he tries to prevent Trump from acting on his worst impulses, or at least doesn't actively encourage them like some of the more hardcore elements of the administration might.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-kelly-schiller-659705http://time.com/4894987/why-general-john-kelly-trump-last-hope/There were quite a few stories about Kelly attempting to impose some sort of control over Trump during the earlier part of his current role, trying to limit Trump's access to right wing rags like Breitbart and Daily Caller, and trying to curtail his Twitter craziness. I vaguely remember the nuttiness and frequency of Trump's tweets lessened for a while, and though I think it's got crazier again, I'm not sure if it's back to pre-Kelly levels yet, suggesting that Kelly might (repeat,
might) be having some sort of effect, given that we don't have any other consistent barometer by which to measure Trump's lunacy levels. There are also a few stories suggesting Kelly doesn't really like Trump (though it's possible, likely even given some of what I've read, that he shares at least some of the same disturbing political positions) and sees his role as one he feels duty-bound to do, as opposed to one he actually
wants to do.
As many have said on here, Trump's still doing some pretty crazy things, but there's always the vague possibility that without Kelly (and potentially other moderating influences, whoever they might be) he would have done even crazier things. Maybe not though, but I guess we'll never know until many years down the line, if ever. I guess I'm probably holding onto a vain hope that someone, somewhere in the Trump administration isn't a complete nutcase and will actually impose some sort of sanity should it all go tits up, and there are very few people around Trump that I see as even possibly being like that, but Kelly's one. Anyways, apologies for writing reams of circular spiel on a subject and scenario that I'm not sure I even really believe, let alone understand, this is as much about setting my own thoughts on the matter in some sort of order as anything else.
