🔗 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 bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

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

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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 federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 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.”