🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push 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 issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue 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 actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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