🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push 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, arguing that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops 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 local authorities. He described 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 following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”