🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden 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 war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 each party think they are right.”

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