🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling 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 purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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 symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 each party think they are right.”

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