🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of 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 bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality 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 machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a theoretical 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 following orders.”

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