🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem 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 violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. 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 contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”