🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent 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 climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

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