🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach 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 profoundly concerned that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, 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.”