🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain 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 several jurisdictions.

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 imaginary 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”