🔗 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 smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, 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 debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”