🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel 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 painted a picture of a imaginary 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.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”