🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”