🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged 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 Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

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 declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing 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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops 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 gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation 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 individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”