🔗 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 move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at 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 deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed 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 officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem 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 symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration 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 US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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.”

At some point, 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.”