🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”