🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career 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 graduated from 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 sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – 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 top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean 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 “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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