🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” 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 service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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 doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”