🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating 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 purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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