🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

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

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He 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 succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”