🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, 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 succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

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

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