🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “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 independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 controversy over deadly operations in international waters 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 “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”