🔗 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 smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

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 real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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