🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”