🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, 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 grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 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 injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”