🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, 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 the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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.”

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