A fortnight ago, I devoted this space to a preliminary examination of a few of freshly-elected Donald Trump’s initial cabinet picks, noting they included some good ones — Chris Wright for Energy and Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio for SecState, for instance — and a few that should be allowed nowhere near the positions they are being nominated for, i.e. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard (Matt Gaetz had already slithered off screen by that point, thank God.) One name I didn’t put up for analysis was Trump’s pick for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth.

In terms of classification as a cabinet pick, Hegseth features as a bit of an anomaly; not an objectively dreadful, almost comically bad trainwreck like RFK Jr., Gabbard and Gaetz, but not an obvious and objectively qualified selection either. So what to think of Pete Hegseth?

He is certainly an unconventional pick, but that in itself is not disqualifying. And some impressive prerequisites are there: Ivy league-educated (Princeton and Harvard), decorated military officer with deployments under his belt, and experience leading veteran’s organizations. His focus would seem to be in the right place — reorienting the military away from its preoccupation with social experimentation and back toward doing what it is supposed to do; prepare to fight and win wars. He would seem to fit in well with Trump’s agenda to essentially rearrange the federal bureaucracy, taking a scythe to the entrenched D.C. superstructure. Certainly some reforms in that direction would be welcome at the Department of Defense.

But there are problems.

Setting aside for a moment the scandals that seem to follow him around like a new puppy, the most obvious one is his lack of executive experience, never mind lack of experience overseeing an organization with the width and breadth of the DoD, and an $800 billion-and-change budget — not to mention a deadly serious job to do.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

This lack of experience can cut in a couple of directions. Obviously there are the concerns that accompany having someone leading an organization for which they need to learn not only the details, but the day-to-day basics. He’ll have a staff to help with that, as do all cabinet secretaries, but will he have the wherewithal to know how to manage them efficiently? Which brings us to the corollary concern: if, like me, you believe Washington bureaucracy is fatally bloated and in need of some substantive reform, you may be justified in wondering if Hegseth’s very unfamiliarity with managing the inner workings of such an enormous bureaucracy will be more of a hindrance than a help in making the necessary rearrangements. The fear, that is, that the long-entrenched bureaucracy will simply overwhelm him.

Then there are the scandals. We do not know how much is true — all of it? None? It’s probably somewhere in the middle. If properly substantiated, many of the allegations are disturbing, enough so to render his nomination void. I, for one, do not want an unrepentant alcoholic within arm’s reach of the nuclear button. A repentant one — that’s a different story.

Some of the “scandals” that have been reported, on the other hand, are simply foolish. The Jerusalem Cross tattoo, for instance. As a matter of personal taste, I am not a great fan of tattoos, but even I must acquiesce (a little, and begrudgingly) to the evolution of societal standards, and someone’s misinterpretation of an ancient Christian symbol he elected to have needled onto his skin is not grounds for disqualification. If the man is unqualified, he is unqualified, but let us agree the reasons for doing so should be based on something more serious than a cross tattoo.

One solid basis for evaluating his aptitude for the position, is how he is received by the enlisted ranks. At 44, he is certainly closer to them in age than most generals or previous SecDef’s. Frankly, at this point there may be know way of getting a true read on that — both supporters and opponents will be able to find someone who will either exclaim they would follow him to hell and back, or conversely, they would refuse to follow him to the latrine.

So we are back to the big questions — does Pete Hegseth have the aptitude, qualifications, experience and temperament to lead the U.S. Department of Defense? President-elect Trump is inheriting a dangerous world, and a military experts agree is not prepared to deal with it, after years of official neglect. The Senate has some serious questions to ponder, questions like, “is Pete Hegseth capable of rebuilding the U.S. Pacific Fleet in a manner sufficient to deter Chinese aggression, and subsequently defeat the Chinese military should deterrence fail? Or would someone else be better for the task? Did I see Ron DeSantis in the hallway?”

Kelly Sloan is a political and public affairs consultant and a recovering journalist based in Denver.