🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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 local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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