🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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 forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”