🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies 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 Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”