🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

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

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”