🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Soviet-era tactics and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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