🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command 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 standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”