🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be very difficult and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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