🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

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

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. 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 law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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