🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

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

Several of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

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

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 all involved 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.”