🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy 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, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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