🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at 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 sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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