🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander 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 manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, 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.”