🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 increase in tensions 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 getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”