🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself 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 sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation 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 is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

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

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases 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 both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”