🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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