🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated 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 similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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