🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 right.”

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