🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”