🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty 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 removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. 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 “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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.”

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