🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

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

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’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 uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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