🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber 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 conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

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 WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 acting legally.”

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