🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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