🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of 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 sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty 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 independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander 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 reality domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 all involved 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.”