🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality 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 U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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