🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned 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 manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized 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 cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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