🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection 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 nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent 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 Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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