🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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 sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He 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 wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

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