🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the 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 effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 acting legally.”

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.”