🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be very difficult and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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