🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate 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 capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia 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 infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”