🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few 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 power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units 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 biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”