🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of 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 assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” 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 homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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