🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation 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 nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

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.”