🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times 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 organization, the solution may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at 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 assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 escalation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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