🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination 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 gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial 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 forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party 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.”