🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

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 different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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.”

At some point, 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.”