🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, 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 top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain 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 threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides 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.”