🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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