🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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