🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of 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 train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

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

One early 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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of 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 looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

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

Sooner or later, 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.”