🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest 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 executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors 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 reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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