🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 following orders.”

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