🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

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