🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime 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 deeply worried that breaches of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”