🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’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 inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent 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 erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining 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 unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”