🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders 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 fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors 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 homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

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