🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed 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 dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

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 serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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