🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos 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 the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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