Pete Hegseth fires Army Gen. Chris Donahue in his dangerous military purge

Most historians agree that in the Declaration of Independence, at least seven of the signatories’ 27 grievances refer to King George III’s use of the military against the colonists as British citizens. In light of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pushing out another of our nation’s top military leaders, that 12th grievance is particularly instructive.

This Video Is Trending Right Now →

Of the British monarch, the colonists wrote, “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.” We see, then, that from the onset of our republic, the founders embraced the principle that politicizing the military is anathema to democracy. But Hegseth clearly rejects that principle as he pursues the politicization of the American military.

The abrupt resignation of Army Gen. Chris Donahue, commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, is the latest example of Hegseth’s disastrous leadership.

Donahue was a legendary Delta Force commander and the last American service member to leave Afghanistan during the chaotic withdrawal in 2021. He is an exemplary officer who was respected by those he has led and is expected to eventually serve as Army chief of staff or even chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But CBS News, citing multiple sources, reported that Donahue had “earned the ire of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth” and was forced to retire prematurely.

In April, Hegseth fired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George. The general had reportedly pushed back on the secretary’s decision to block the promotions of four Army colonels — two Black men and two women — to brigadier general. The four had already been vetted and approved for those promotions by an internal Army board. The New York Times, citing military officials, said George had refused to remove those officers’ names from the promotion list and that Hegseth had refused to meet with him to discuss the issue.

When Hegseth testified to the House Armed Services Committee on April 29, Rep. Marilyn Strickland, D-Wash., asked, “What specific national security risk, mission risk or leadership concern did Gen. George present that justified removing him in the middle of a conflict? Or was he removed because he challenged some decisions being made?” The secretary refused to provide legal or professional grounds for what he had done and has failed to provide rationale for any of the senior officer removals.

Though reporting from The Wall Street Journal speculates that Hegseth may have wrongly associated Donahue with the deaths related to the military’s withdrawal from Kabul, officials told the newspaper that the Pentagon is characterizing it as consistent with the secretary’s dubious goal of dismissing 10% of active-duty general or flag officers and eliminating 20% of four-star general officer positions.

Donahue will be the sixth three- or four-star Army general to unexpectedly depart during Hegseth’s tenure (out of roughly 60 Army officers who hold that rank). Hegseth’s purge of senior military officers now includes the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force. Overall, he has fired or sidelined nearly three dozen general officers and admirals and blocked the promotion of 40 senior colonels or Navy captains who had been selected for flag rank, which is unprecedented in our history.

Donahue will be the sixth three- or four-star Army general to unexpectedly depart during Hegseth’s tenure.

As much as we may be inclined to blame Hegseth alone for firing a significant number of the current military leadership, he ultimately answers to President Donald Trump, and we should take the president letting the secretary do this as a sign of his support.

Because President Trump has already sought to use the military to control illegal immigration, deployed troops to cities for “law and order” missions and threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to protests, Hegseth’s purge is all the more consequential. A politicized senior military leadership is consistent with his policy choices, and they will be more compliant.  They may also be reluctant to tell the truth to the president and the defense secretary and instead tell them what they want to hear.

This Video Is Trending Right Now 👇

Click here to watch the video

Our recent attack on Iran may be illustrative. The administration apparently ignored military leaders who warned Iran would seek to close the Strait of Hormuz. We’ll be even worse off if professional military leadership is replaced by officers who ignore their best military judgment and don’t express contrary views.

Play

Politicization of the military ultimately decreases the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service chiefs in one of their most essential responsibilities: developing the officer corps. They direct the establishment of promotion boards and nominate officers for promotions or selection for key command positions. In the past, promotion lists through the rank of major general have typically been reviewed by the civilian service secretaries. The defense secretary had the legal authority to do so, but traditionally, either accepted or denied an entire list. Individuals were only removed if adverse information appeared following recommendations from the promotion board. 

Politicization of the military will likely set the stage for political infighting among the senior military leadership. Officers may come to believe their recommendations for promotions or command selection should be based on a fellow officer’s political alignment as much as, if not more than, their military expertise and performance.

One could even imagine an incoming president seeking to replace the entire senior military leadership based on political affiliations — that is, treating military leaders like Cabinet secretaries, political appointees or ambassadors as part of a presidential transition.

One could even imagine an incoming president seeking to replace the entire senior military leadership based on political affiliations — that is, treating military leaders like Cabinet secretaries.

The American Army was created on June 14, 1775, which makes our military even older than our nation. From the onset, the nation’s founders recognized the military was a profession that required acceptance of ultimate liability. The members could be killed in battle or required to order others to die in defense of the nation. Patriots rose in rebellion and died fighting a military whose primary loyalty was to a king and not to its nation’s citizens. This critical relationship between the American military and its citizens has not changed in 250 years.

Consequently, the American military’s apolitical nature as well as the contract between the military and civil authority have remained essential principles of our democracy. As we celebrate the miracle of our founding, it would be beyond a tragedy for us to surrender those principles.  

Jeff McCausland

Jeff McCausland, a retired Army colonel, is a visiting professor at Dickinson College. A former dean of the U.S. Army War College, he commanded a battalion in combat and was later a member of the National Security Council. He is the author of “Battle Tested! Gettysburg Leadership Lessons.”