🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber 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 war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of 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 historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes 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 particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”