🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed 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 effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors 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 grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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