🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

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 war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality 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 removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

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

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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.”