🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent 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 restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 right.”

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