🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

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 shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated 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 parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

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

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”