🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. 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 expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”