🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists 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 leadership roles 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops 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 biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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