🔗 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 move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed 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 manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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