🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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