🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber 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 deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping 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 furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective 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 survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of 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 gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”