🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

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

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, 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.”