🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, 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.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove 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 was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. 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 each party think they are right.”

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