🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence 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 installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance 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 dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a imaginary 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 acting legally.”

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