🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades 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, 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 Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions 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 tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

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

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”