🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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