🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. 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 accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”