🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow 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 service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular 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 prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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