🔗 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 top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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