🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to politicise 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 cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty 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 series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach 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 WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”