🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating 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 effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing 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 historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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