🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”