🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder 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 recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”