🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops 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 gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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