🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent 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 at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

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

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts 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 firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”