🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate 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 cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty 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 military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear 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 leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 right.”

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.”