🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions predicted 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 analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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 every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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