🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting 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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

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

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”