🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission 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 sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “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 dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant 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 murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”