🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. 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 “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining 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 major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”