🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 each party think they are right.”

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