🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing 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 controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated 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 law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon 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 threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”