🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting 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 former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, 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 military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, 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 impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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