🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative 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 noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. 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 rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign 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 intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

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