🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, 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 Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a theoretical 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 right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”