🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were 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 dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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