🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining 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 real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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