🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant 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 murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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.”

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