🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration 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 established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops 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 direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”