🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

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

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem 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 inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. 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 contested in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”

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