🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

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