🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem 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 extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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