🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, 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 top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent 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 killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant 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 unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”