🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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