🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

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

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance 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 dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

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

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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