🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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 right.”

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