🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “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 independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge 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 changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”