🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad 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 disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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