🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”