🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel 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 Pentagon leadership has asserted 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 manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”