🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. 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 deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”