🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign 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 retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

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

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”