🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing 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 presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols abroad 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 legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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