🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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