🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial 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 forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”