🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, 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.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm 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 US military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”