🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”