🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt 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 executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 officers, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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