🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, 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 situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles 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 federalised and sent into another state against its will.

“What could go wrong?” Eaton said. “You can very easily see an confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”