🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent 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 killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 the Caribbean 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 established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”