🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging 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 independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator 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 rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. 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 “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 following orders.”

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.”