🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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 injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”