🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, 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 the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is federalised 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 acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”