🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down 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 infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed 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 stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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.”

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