🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many 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 first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops 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 municipal law enforcement. He described 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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