🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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.”

Sooner or later, 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.”