🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The federal government 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 legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 each party 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.”