🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“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 officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 escalation in which each party 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.”