🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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