🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal 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 confrontation in which each party 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 injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”