🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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