🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss 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 the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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