🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged 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 officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant 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 war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”