Obama-era Defense chief signals military ethics 'in danger' under Trump

Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel raised alarming concerns with President-elect Trump’s choice to appoint Pete Hegseth to the highly regarded post in a New York Times op-ed published Friday.

“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,” Hagel wrote.

He disapproved of Trump’s “recess appointments” that would allow nominees to bypass public hearings and background checks, reiterating that Hegseth should have a “full and transparent confirmation process.”

Trump’s decision to nominate a Fox News host with little experience in military leadership has already spurred backlash from lawmakers.

Some have questioned if Hegseth will blindly acquiesce to the demands of the former president, including using military force on Americans as he referenced in remarks on the campaign trail.

Trump has allegedly drafted an executive order to create a “warrior board” of retired generals and noncommissioned officers who would be given power to review three- and four-star officers and to remove anyone “lacking in requisite leadership qualities.”

“This is a dangerous idea that violates the very essence of the most stable, respected and nonpolitical military in the world,” Hagel stated.

He argued the board could reduce people’s interest in serving, which has already seen a sharp decline in recent years.

“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,” the former Republican Senator wrote.

“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.”

Hagel added that Trump’s restructuring of the armed forces would forcibly impact foreign policy measures for the nation’s allies and enemies.

“There are global consequences to inserting political management into our military. Both our allies and adversaries would take note,” Hagel said.

“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.”