🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership 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 “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation 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 people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”