🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality 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 attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”