🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 each party think they are right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”