🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

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

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership 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 “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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