🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass 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 standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent 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 perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment 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 takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested 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 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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