🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of 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 president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost 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 rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated 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 historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

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 WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”