🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. 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 painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 following orders.”

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