🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”