🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

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

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 doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”