🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”