🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

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 military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, 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 dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists 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 leadership roles 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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”