🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment 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 swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation 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 civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”