🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 right.”

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