🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units 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 local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 each party think they are right.”

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