🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent 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 men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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