🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”