🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 acting legally.”

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