🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee 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 series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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