🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular 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 prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”