🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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 Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”