🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”