🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped 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 parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 each party think they are right.”

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