🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has no doubts 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”