🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. 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 combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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