What Happens When the Country Loses a General

(Photo Illustration by The Bulwark | Photo United States Department of Defense via Getty)

THE REPORTED EARLY RETIREMENT of Gen. Chris Donahue from command of U.S. Army Europe and Africa is about more than the departure of a single officer. It is the latest example of a broader trend that should concern anyone interested in the long-term health of the American military: the loss of experienced senior leaders whose judgment, expertise, and mentorship have been accumulated over decades of service.

Donahue is not simply another general officer. Over the course of a career spanning more than thirty years, he served as a Ranger, a special operations commander, and a combat leader on multiple deployments before commanding the 82nd Airborne Division and XVIII Airborne Corps. Throughout that journey, he earned the trust and respect of soldiers.

Military organizations are built on trust. Soldiers willingly follow leaders they believe are competent, committed, and authentic. Those qualities cannot be manufactured. They are earned through years of shared hardship, difficult decisions, and demonstrated character. Few senior officers have developed the reputation Donahue enjoys among the soldiers who have served under him. To understand why his earlier-than-expected retirement deserves attention, it helps to understand the command he leads.

The lineage of U.S. Army Europe and Africa stretches back to some of the most consequential chapters in American military history. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was the first American Army commander of allied forces in Europe and wore the same shoulder patch worn by soldiers assigned to the command today. During the Cold War, the commander carried the title Commander in Chief, U.S. Army Europe, CINCUSAREUR in military shorthand, and led more than 300,000 soldiers stationed across the continent as part of America’s primary effort to deter and, if necessary, defeat Soviet aggression. The patch has remained the same. The mission has not.

The Bulwark’s mission has remained the same: Original reporting, smart analysis, and honest commentary in service of our pro-democracy community. Join us.

The Cold War version of U.S. Army Europe focused primarily on preparing American formations for a large-scale war in Central Europe. The modern version remains responsible for readiness, deterrence, and potential deployment to a host of contingencies, but it has evolved into something far more complex. It is now a multinational headquarters that trains, exercises, educates, and develops leaders alongside allies and partners across two continents. It serves as a bridge between the U.S. Army and dozens of partner militaries whose cooperation would be essential in any future crisis. While the threat to Europe is less than it was at the height of the Cold War, the challenges facing the command are in many ways more complex.

The commander oversees more than 40,000 soldiers, civilians, and Army professionals spread across an enormous geographic area stretching from the Arctic to southern Africa. His first responsibility is ensuring those forces are trained, equipped, disciplined, and prepared for whatever mission the nation may require. Readiness is not a slogan. It is a daily commitment involving training, leader development, maintenance, logistics, planning, and preparation for contingencies that may emerge with little warning. Yet readiness is only one part of the job.

The commander also maintains relationships with the armies of 49 European nations and 54 African nations. That responsibility requires constant engagement with chiefs of defense, army commanders, ambassadors, ministers of defense, and heads of government. During my own tenure, much of our effort focused on helping allied and partner militaries prepare to deploy alongside American forces in combat operations. Today’s challenges may involve strengthening NATO deterrence, supporting Ukraine, responding to instability in Africa, helping partner nations train to fight terrorists and insurgents, or preparing for contingencies yet unseen, but the requirement remains the same. Building trust and interoperability among allies demands constant attention from senior leaders. The pace can be relentless, and the diversity of responsibilities is difficult to appreciate from the outside.

Join now

WHEN I SERVED AS ONE OF Gen. Donahue’s predecessors, U.S. Army Europe and U.S. Army Africa were separate organizations. Gen. Donahue has been undoubtedly even busier than I was, and the calendar I still have from my time in Europe shows I was plenty busy enough. One random day from that calendar began before sunrise with physical training, followed by a review of the daily intelligence book, which detailed the past 24 hours’ developments in every significant issue across the theater. Before mid-morning, I had discussions with my boss at European Command and with a four-star commander at Central Command regarding operations and deployments of our command’s units to Iraq and Afghanistan. At nearly the same time, I welcomed a National Guard commander from the United States who was preparing to assume responsibility for the Kosovo Force mission, a NATO operation that continues to this day. Shortly thereafter came meetings with the ground force commanders of Ukraine and Romania, whose soldiers were training alongside American units at Grafenwöhr. The day was only beginning.

Before noon, a helicopter flight carried me to a community event supporting Special Olympics athletes, followed by lunch with local high school students. From there it was on to Grafenwöhr for a leader development session with commanders from an infantry brigade. That evening, my wife and I hosted U.S. ambassadors and allied land force commanders at our home, holding conversations that were often as important to alliance building as any formal meeting. After the guests departed, a two-hour video teleconference with Pentagon officials remained to discuss budget proposals and resource requirements. The following morning began with a flight to Cincu, Romania, where sixteen allied and partner nations were participating in a major river-crossing exercise that our U.S. Army Europe had designed.

This was a typical day. The commander is expected to move seamlessly between warfighting, diplomacy, alliance management, leader development, community engagement, strategic planning, and resource management, often within the span of a few hours. Success required the ability to think simultaneously as a soldier, diplomat, executive, mentor, and statesman.

Adding to those responsibilities is the commander’s role as an Army service component commander. The title is opaque, but the responsibility is enormous. The commander serves as the Army’s senior representative to the joint force throughout Europe and Africa and provides support to a broad range of organizations and missions. That includes supporting the European Command, Africa Command, Central Command, Transportation Command, Cyber Command, Space Command, and Special Operations Command while coordinating closely with the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Space Force, allied militaries, and host nations.

In many respects, the commander becomes the connective tissue holding these organizations together. Competing priorities must be balanced, resources synchronized, relationships maintained, and requirements fulfilled. It is a position that demands both breadth and depth of experience.

Share

AND AFTER ALL THESE OPERATIONAL responsibilities are addressed, another, possibly even more important obligation emerges.

The commander is responsible for the welfare of soldiers and their families throughout the theater. Soldiers don’t sign up expecting to spend their time thinking about housing, schools, medical facilities, child development centers, spouse-support programs, and quality-of-life concerns affecting thousands of military families serving far from home. But strong units depend upon strong families. Readiness is measured not only by equipment and training schedules but by whether soldiers know their loved ones are cared for while they perform demanding missions.

Years ago, I was asked what it takes to make a good general officer. The answer: About thirty years of experience, a lot of scar tissue, and a desire to learn and grow every day. Strategic leaders are not manufactured. They are cultivated. They are shaped by successes and failures, deployments and family separations, difficult commanders and exceptional mentors, battlefield victories and organizational setbacks. Every assignment leaves a mark. Every challenge adds another layer of judgment. Every responsibility teaches lessons that cannot be learned from a textbook or a classroom.

Growing a strategic leader is more like growing a mature forest than assembling a machine. You can plant a sapling today, but you cannot create a hundred-year oak by next summer. Time, experience, and careful stewardship are irreplaceable ingredients. The Army’s most senior commanders represent decades of investment by the government and decades of service to the nation.

Join now

THAT INVESTMENT MATTERS because the most valuable quality possessed by senior leaders is judgment. Judgment determines how risk is managed, how alliances are maintained, how organizations respond to crises, and how leaders balance competing priorities. It is accumulated slowly and earned through experience.

There is another responsibility that accompanies every three- and four-star command, although it rarely appears on an organizational chart. Senior leaders like Gen. Donahue are expected to develop the next generation, to build the bench. In the military, being a senior leader means that by definition, you’re not going to be around very long. Retirement looms. Whatever their formal responsibilities, all generals and admirals also have the responsibility of identifying future leaders, mentoring them, challenging them, and preparing them for higher commands. Every senior commander serves not only as a leader of today’s force but as a shaper of tomorrow’s.

That stewardship is one reason Donahue’s departure matters. It is also why the recent departures of leaders such as Gen. Randy George, Gen. Dave Hodne, Lt. Gen. D. A. Sims, Lt. Gen. Joseph McGee, Maj. Gen. Bill Green, and numerous others deserve careful consideration. Civilian leaders have every right to select the military leaders they believe are best suited to execute national policy, and to replace those who, for whatever reason, they believe don’t fit. That principle is fundamental to American democracy and should never be questioned. But as citizens, it’s our responsibility to ensure the politicians who are serving in our name, and with our consent, are making wise and responsible decisions.

In this case, Gen. Donahue’s departure does not occur in isolation, but is rather in combination with the removal of other capable senior officers. Secretary Hegseth has now overseen the removal or early retirement of more than two dozen senior officers across the armed forces. Each individual case may have its own explanation. Yet taken together, they represent a significant loss of experience, mentorship, and institutional knowledge accumulated over decades. A healthy forest can survive the loss of a few mature trees. What it cannot easily replace is an entire generation of growth.

The Army will endure. It always has. New leaders will emerge, responsibilities will be assumed, and the institution will continue its mission. But long after Hegseth has left his office, the echoes of his decisions and unexplained actions will still be reverberating in the leadership of the military.

Share