🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former 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 president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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