🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career 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 was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent 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 defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty 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 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, 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.”