🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing 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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”