🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen 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 extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent 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 executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach 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 firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a theoretical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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