🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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