🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, 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 armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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 a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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