🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”