🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – 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 appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”