🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of 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 assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment 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 appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, 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 situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”