🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – 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 analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’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 ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. 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 established military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 acting legally.”

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