🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden 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 war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

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

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