🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable 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 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early 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 forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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