🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 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, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 right.”

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