🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

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

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to train 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 scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. 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 overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”