🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild 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 tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – 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 key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable 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 individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”