🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, 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 restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge 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 new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. 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 right.”

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