🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit 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 is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem 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 Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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 local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 each party think they are right.”

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