🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

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

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 right.”

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