🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“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 comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality 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 attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”