🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary Pete Hegseth are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia 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 infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance 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 firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous 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 within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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