🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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