🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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.”