🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia 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 assigned to the Middle East 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 took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting 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 controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early 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 a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which both sides 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.”