Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.
“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for presidents in the future.”
He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”
An Entire Career in Service
Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.
Predictions and Current Events
In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.
Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.
The Pentagon Purge
In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.
This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”
An Ominous Comparison
The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.
“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.
One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.
Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”
The Home Front
Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.
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 dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He described 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.”
At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”
