🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated 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 similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”