🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the senior command 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 credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several 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.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to 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 inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

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

Sooner or later, 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.”