🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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