🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing 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 furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

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

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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