One of the duties Donald Trump clearly relished his first time around as president was that of commander in chief.He regularly referred to, quote, my generals, meaning both his officers in the service.
My generals and my military.
And the retired officers he appointed to top positions.
My generals, those generals are going to keep us so safe. They're going to have a lot of problems the other side.
Despite the praise, Trump was often frustrated by a military leadership that wanted to preserve its nonpartisan role in American society.
Take the summer of 2020, when he threatened to send troops into the streets in response to the protests after the murder of George Floyd.
If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.
A few days later, his defense secretary, Mark Esper, said the opposite.
The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now.
Four years later, Trump no longer boasts about his generals.
These generals that aren't even generals as far as I was concerned.What a stupid group of people they were.
Many of them have since criticized his leadership.Some used the word fascist, like his former chief of staff, retired Marine General John Kelly, speaking to The New York Times.
He's certainly an authoritarian admirer.
This time around, Trump has picked a defense secretary who has pushed for a major shakeup of military leadership.Pete Hegseth is a Fox News host and Army National Guard veteran.What he doesn't have?National security leadership experience.
Consider this, Pete Hegseth is about to oversee a defense department with an $800 billion budget and millions of service members.Is he qualified for the job?From NPR, I'm Mary Louise Kelly. It's Consider This from NPR.
What does it take to run the Department of Defense, one of the biggest, most complex entities in the U.S.government, an institution that, as our next guest notes, has its own judicial code, its own legal system, its own health care system?
Well, Chuck Hagel ran that institution.He served as Secretary of Defense from 2013 to 2015.Before that, he served a dozen years in the U.S.Senate as a Republican senator from Nebraska.Secretary Hagel, great to speak with you again.
I want to start by letting you give us some sense of the span of things that would cross your desk as you tried to run the Defense Department.
Well, the way I explain that job, I led it.I didn't run it.I led it.And I think that's important because you have to work with and listen to so many different leaders within the institution.
I mean, starting with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and then each of the chiefs of the of the services.You've got the White House.You work with all the institutions in government.It's a daily, early in the morning to late at night effort.
Unexpected.A lot of unexpected things come across your desk.You're around the world.I think in the two years I was secretary, I took around 27 international trips.
Amy Quinton Fair to say you are not describing an entry-level management job.
No, but you know, those of us who've had the privilege of leading the Pentagon have never had an experience quite like that, and really nobody has.
But most of us who have led it have had some experience leading institutions in government and in the private sector.
So I do want to turn you to the current moment and to President-elect Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon.He is a Fox News host.He's an Army veteran, National Guard.He has never run a big organization.
Our Pentagon correspondent, Tom Bowman, who's covered the Defense Department for many years, I went back over the biographies of defense secretaries and secretaries of war, going back to the beginning of the republic.
He says, and I'm quoting, without a doubt, Hedgeseth has the least experience.What questions does that raise?
I think that is an issue, and I think the Senate confirmation process will bring that up. The confirmation process of these big jobs is so critically important.I think, though, it's more than just experience.
I mean, it's the complete persona of who you are and what you bring to the job.
So you wrote an essay for the New York Times last week. And the headline was, why I'm worried about our military.You write, political independence and ethics are the bedrock of our military.Today, I'm concerned that both are in danger.
If the military is ever politicized in any way, and we're seeing some indications from
this incoming administration, that it may be, for example, the Warriors group, this group that President-elect Trump has talked about, evaluating generals and admirals, making decisions whether those people are qualified to lead the military or not, or if they've made mistakes, and then recommending to the president that he fire them.
That's politicizing the military.And the things that Mr. Haig said about the military, That does concern me in every way, because if you politicize the military, you politicize... May I ask what remarks are giving you pause?Yes.
For example, women should not be in combat. You know, we've passed that marker a long time ago.This issue of diversity in the military.
Just to put a point on this, Trump's nominee, he has suggested he would look to remove senior officers that he sees as too woke.He has included the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs in that.My question to you, can he do that?
Just for people who don't follow this closely, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs serves a four year term.The current chair, C.Q.Brown, is only one year in.
Yes, well, the President of the United States has the authority to fire any federal employee.He can do that.And this is another example of what I'm talking about.When you start talking about, well, firing the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
whose record is as impressive as any record we've seen.When you talk about firing him because of so-called woe, what do you mean by that?That's what's so dangerous here, and that's why I'm so concerned.
If, in fact, this administration follows through on these things, then we're in for a lot of trouble.
What when you say we could be in for a lot of trouble?Trouble like what?What does that mean?
of officers resigning, when you start firing people from the outside, you'll have officers and senior enlisted resign.You will lose the quality of the people who now serve.Our adversaries will see that.Our allies will see that.
They will take from that a weakening of our military, a weakening of our military leadership, a weakening of our commitment by our military to a purpose much larger than their own self-interest.And that's the United States of America's security.
To people who might look at the Defense Department and say, hey, maybe this institution is due for a shakeup.
This is a military that fought two long, really expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I don't need to tell you, where objectives were not always clearly defined.
Well, that doesn't come from the military.That comes from the political leadership of our country.It wasn't the military.Our military serves the president,
as the leader and commander in chief of this country with the acquiescence and the support of the Congress and the American people.But the military doesn't make that decision.
Former Defense Secretary and former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.Secretary, thank you.
This episode was produced by Connor Donovan.It was edited by Courtney Dorning.Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan.It's Consider This from NPR.I'm Mary Louise Kelly.
Sign in
