🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission 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 rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

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 major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”