🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move 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, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure 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 key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went 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 dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. 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 accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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.”

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