🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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.”

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