🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, 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 remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular 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 prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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