🔗 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 is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

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 war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership 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 “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”