🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility 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 contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party 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.”