🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 right.”

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