🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion 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 “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

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 real problem 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 actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

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