🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built 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 uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, 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 train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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