Departure of Gen. Donahue shows Hegseth’s weakness

When Gen. Christopher “C.D.” Donahue relinquished command of U.S. Army Europe and Africa earlier this month, the Pentagon lost one of its most respected battlefield commanders.

I first came to know C.D. when he was a colonel, initially by reputation and later through direct interaction as the FBI’s counterterrorism division worked closely with U.S. military special operations forces. In our business, reputations are earned the hard way. They are built over years of difficult missions, tested under extraordinary pressure and shaped by the confidence of the people who have served alongside you. Donahue’s reputation was exceptional.

What struck me wasn’t simply that he was an extraordinary warfighter. It was that he combined operational excellence with humility, sound judgment and an uncommon ability to build trust across organizations. The most successful national security missions are rarely accomplished by a single agency or military unit. They require leaders who can unite military commands, intelligence agencies, federal law enforcement and international partners around a common purpose. Donahue was one of those rare leaders.

I continued to admire his leadership from afar as he went on to command the 82nd Airborne Division, the XVIII Airborne Corps and, ultimately, U.S. Army Europe and Africa during one of the most consequential periods for European security since World War II. As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reshaped the continent’s security landscape, Donahue became one of the Army’s most respected operational commanders, trusted not only by American soldiers but by allies across NATO.

His departure should concern every American who believes military leadership should be based on merit.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has repeatedly defended his decisions by invoking two principles: meritocracy and lethality. Those are military standards every American should embrace. The nation’s defense should be led by the most capable people available.

The question is whether those principles are actually guiding the decisions being made. The departure of Gen. Donahue is difficult to reconcile with that claim.

It also did not occur in isolation. Over the past year, Secretary Hegseth has faced bipartisan criticism after discussing sensitive military operations on an unsecured Signal chat, an episode the Defense Department’s inspector general concluded unnecessarily increased operational risk and violated Pentagon communications policy. He has defended a broad purge of senior military leaders as necessary to restore meritocracy while relying on claims about previous general officer removals that have been publicly debunked. Now comes the departure of one of the Army’s most respected commanders.

Reasonable people can disagree about any one of those events. Leaders make mistakes, and every administration has the right to shape its team. But patterns matter, and this pattern raises a legitimate question about whether experience, judgment and professional excellence are actually driving personnel decisions — or whether those principles have become slogans rather than standards.

One of the clearest indicators of leadership is the caliber of people a leader chooses to retain, empower and promote. Strong institutions become stronger when exceptional leaders are encouraged to stay and serve. 

The opposite is equally true. When proven leaders leave prematurely, particularly those with extraordinary operational credibility, institutions lose more than experience. They lose trust, continuity and invaluable judgment that cannot be quickly replaced.

The Department of Defense is unlike any other federal agency. Its leaders oversee more than 2 million service members and civilian employees, steward nearly $1 trillion dollars in taxpayer resources, reassure allies, deter adversaries and make decisions that ultimately affect the lives of young Americans who may one day be asked to fight the nation’s wars.

That is precisely why the Constitution requires the Senate to provide advice and consent.

Confirmation hearings are not supposed to be political theater. They are among the few opportunities our constitutional system provides to prevent an unqualified nominee from assuming extraordinary authority. Senators cannot predict the future, but they are expected to exercise independent judgment about a nominee’s experience, candor, character, professionalism and ability to lead.

Reasonable senators will always disagree on policy. They should demand the same leadership qualities regardless of which party controls the White House.

Looking back, Hegseth’s confirmation should remind every senator that advice and consent is not a ceremonial vote. It is the country’s last quality-control check before enormous authority is placed in one person’s hands. 

The departure of Gen. Donahue reinforces what some of us argued during Pete Hegseth’s confirmation: He was not the right person to lead the Department of Defense. Senators who voted to confirm him knew or should have known that the office demanded leadership, judgment, and character, not political loyalty. 
 

Have thoughts about this? Send a letter to the editor using our letters form or email letters@dallasnews.com. Letters should be no more than 200 words and include the first and last name of the writer and city of residence.