🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. 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 alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, 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.”