🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer 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 without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of 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 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 defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee 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 wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. 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 rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation 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.”

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