🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern 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 international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. 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 challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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