🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him 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 installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting 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 controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership 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 “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

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 major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”