🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission 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 local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step 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 is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in 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 reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed 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 accepted military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”