🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 acting legally.”

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.”