🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

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

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has stated 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 law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 acting legally.”

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