🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee 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 removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective 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 unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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