🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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