🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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