🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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