🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career 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 consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 following orders.”

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