🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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