🔗 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 push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

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

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals 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 violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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