🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing 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 furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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