🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with 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 dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which each party 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.”