🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed 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 similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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