🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing 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 damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot 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 war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

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 real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”