🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

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

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”