🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”