🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

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

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

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

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust 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 top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”