🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, 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 situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops 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 federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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