🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest 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 men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 increase in tensions 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 individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”