🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

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

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“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 executing these individuals, but they are ousting 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 debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions 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 several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”