The US AG does not reestablish law and order.
The principal duties of the Attorney General are to (info from the Justice Dept):
Represent the United States in legal matters.
Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.
As you can see, most of what the AG does is pretty invisible to the public, so we are very reliant on what he *has* said in past, and the public statements he releases about what he is doing. If he does not, all we will know of his activities are what his critics have to say against him; so it is essential that he be forthcoming and transparent about his objectives and goals.
Does it seem more reasonable to bombard him with criticism the instant he gets into office, or to wait something like ten to twelve months so that the criticism will be informed?