🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 acting legally.”

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