🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of 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 murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a possibility 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 disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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