🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the senior command 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 reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, 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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts 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 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 engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”