🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – 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 top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent 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 administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”