🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of 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 gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, 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.”