Cutting the Brass: How Reducing Top Military Leadership Could Undermine the War on Terror

In a bold reorganization of the U.S. military’s command structure, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star generals and admirals, a 10% cut across all general and flag officers, and a 20% drawdown among National Guard generals (Hegseth, 2025). While the reform—dubbed “Less Generals, More GIs”—is framed as a necessary streamlining of bloated bureaucracy, critics warn the timing and scope of these cuts could have profound and potentially dangerous implications for America’s ongoing fight against global terrorism.

Command and Control: Why Leadership Matters in Counterterrorism

Counterterrorism is not conventional warfare. It is a highly complex, multinational, intelligence-driven campaign fought across decentralized battlefields, from tribal regions in the Middle East to cyberspace networks and suburban cells. Senior military leaders—especially those with four-star rank—play an irreplaceable role in:

• Coordinating interagency efforts with the CIA, NSA, State Department, and foreign partners.

• Overseeing special operations forces that conduct high-risk raids, targeted strikes, and hostage rescues.

• Managing classified intelligence flows that inform tactical and strategic decisions.

• Sustaining long-term relationships with foreign militaries through military-to-military diplomacy.

Reducing the number of such officers risks thinning the connective tissue that binds these efforts together. "You don’t win the war on terror with bullets alone," a retired CENTCOM commander noted. "You win with relationships, trust, coordination—and that starts at the top."

Past Lessons: The Cost of Command Gaps

The U.S. military’s global counterterrorism posture has, in part, relied on a sprawling leadership structure. Unified Combatant Commands (COCOMs) like U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Africa Command (AFRICOM), and Special Operations Command (SOCOM) are led by four-star generals or admirals with authority across geographic and functional lines. These commanders often serve as the primary U.S. military face in coalition operations, working with allies in NATO, Africa, and the Middle East.

During the early 2000s surge in Iraq and Afghanistan, military leaders like Gen. David Petraeus and Adm. William McRaven brought adaptive leadership to fast-evolving battlefields. Their ability to coordinate resources, revise doctrine, and work with civilian agencies was essential to short-term tactical successes. Critics of the current cuts fear that similar flexibility may be lost under a leaner, less experienced leadership roster.

Strategic Impact: From Pakistan to the Sahel

Across the globe, the fight against terror is intensifying in regions such as:

• The Sahel, where groups like Boko Haram and ISIS affiliates thrive in power vacuums.

• Somalia, where al-Shabaab remains a potent threat.

• Afghanistan, where the Taliban’s return has emboldened extremist networks.

• Pakistan, where intelligence cooperation is delicate and often personality-dependent.

• Yemen, where Houthi-aligned terrorists have launched drone and missile attacks.

With fewer top-level commanders, the ability to project consistent, strategic leadership in these volatile regions may decline. Additionally, the consolidation of commands—such as the proposed merging of EUCOM and AFRICOM—may dilute attention and resources in terror-prone regions.

Political Optics and Morale

Some national security analysts have raised alarms that this reduction may have political undertones. By trimming leadership, the Pentagon risks replacing experience with loyalty, especially if the remaining officers are chosen based on alignment with the current administration rather than qualifications. Such a shift could politicize the military chain of command and erode morale across the ranks.

The move may also signal to terrorist groups that America is stepping back from its global leadership role. In an era when perception drives recruitment, propaganda, and international alignment, this could embolden adversaries and strain partnerships with allies who depend on American leadership.

The Need for Balance

To be sure, reform is not inherently wrong. Critics of the current structure argue that the military is top-heavy and bogged down in bureaucracy. Cutting unnecessary billets, improving efficiency, and elevating younger, diverse leadership can all be positives—if done judiciously.

However, counterterrorism is a generational fight. It requires continuity, vision, and deep institutional memory. Slashing the ranks of those best positioned to lead such efforts—especially without clear succession plans or strategy shifts—could leave the U.S. vulnerable at a critical moment.

---

References

Hegseth, P. (2025, May 5). Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth orders 20% reduction in four-star generals: 'Less Generals More GIs'. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/05/05/us-news/defense-secretary-pete-hegseth-orders-20-reduction-in-four-star-generals-less-generals-more-gis/

Politico. (2025, May 5). Hegseth orders Pentagon to slash top ranks of military. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/05/pentagon-officer-cuts-00329990

Washington Post. (2025, May 5). Hegseth orders cuts to Pentagon’s stable of generals and admirals. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/05/05/hegseth-cuts-generals-admirals/

Reuters. (2025, May 5). US Defense Secretary Hegseth to slash senior-most ranks of military. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-reduce-4-star-positions-by-20-official-says-2025-05-05/

Would you like this version formatted for a publication, or adapted for a think tank briefing or op-ed?