As a former secretary of defense and U.S. senator, I have always believed a secretary of defense had two main responsibilities: one, the defense and security of our nation, and two, supporting the men and women in the Department of Defense who ensure it.
Both of these tasks depend on maintaining the strength of our military. For two and a half centuries, the U.S. military’s fundamental power has been anchored in its history of apolitical professionalism— a power solidified by the belief in and allegiance to our Constitution and the strength of our people. Our military has always been made up of people from all walks of life, and has led American society in ensuring equal rights for all like few other institutions in our country. The armed services were desegregated in 1948, for example, years before the Supreme Court’s landmark Brown decision required the same for schools.
Political independence and ethics are the bedrock of our military. Today, I am concerned that both are in danger. If we begin to compromise those standards by politicizing the Department of Defense, the character of the military could change inexorably, putting its very effectiveness at risk.
Among my many concerns is the way that President-elect Donald Trump appears to be seeking to interfere with the Senate confirmation process for cabinet members. All presidents-elect have the constitutional authority to form their new governments with the advice and consent of the Senate. Mr. Trump has said instead that he wants to pursue “recess appointments,” in which nominees are pushed through without background checks and public hearings. For Pete Hegseth, Mr. Trump’s choice to lead the Pentagon, to be an effective leader, he, like the other nominees, should have a full and transparent confirmation process.
I am also alarmed by reports that Mr. Trump may seek to establish a “warrior board” of retired military personnel that would evaluate and determine the future of three- and four-star generals and admirals. This is a dangerous idea that violates the very essence of the most stable, respected and nonpolitical military in the world. The Pentagon is the largest and one of the most diverse and complicated entities in our government. This is an institution that has its own judicial code, legal system and health care system. We must have competent leaders who understand and respect this system of protecting our nation and its people.
That’s why the Pentagon and all the individual military branches have their own systems to evaluate members and leaders and determine promotions. These decisions are based on qualifications and performance — not on who embraces one political philosophy or another, who adheres to a particular ideology or who capitulates to a president’s demands. The idea that an external group might promote or punish our military leadership based on those political criteria could completely alter the nature of our forces.
Recruitment and retention could also be intensely affected by such a change, with the motivations for joining the military potentially shifting to an entirely new basis. Again, America’s military has always been made up of men and women who put the future of our country above any political leanings they might have. That strength and commitment cannot be overemphasized.
There are global consequences to inserting political management into our military. Both our allies and adversaries would take note. To our allies, which depend on us for their freedom and security, any deterioration of the quality or effectiveness of our military would be a disaster. To our adversaries, it would be a gift. All soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and Coast Guard members take an oath when they join the military — not to a president or a political party, but to the Constitution. They make a commitment to do the right thing for our country, regardless of who is president or which party controls Congress.
We must never jeopardize that commitment. It is who we are as Americans.
Chuck Hagel was the 24th secretary of defense and a Republican U.S. senator from Nebraska. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
