🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – 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 wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. 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 disputed in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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