🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating 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 restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of 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 cases 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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.”