🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation 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 White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped 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 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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