🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

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

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

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