🔗 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 US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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.”