🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative 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 effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

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

A number of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated 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 posts of command 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden 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 violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”