🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of 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 major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”