🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear 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 similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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