🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers 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 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. 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 “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

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

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