🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. 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.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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