🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation 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 civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”