🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate 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 jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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