🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

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

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

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

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining 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 unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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 violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”