🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with 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 historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 both sides think they are right.”

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