Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.
“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders downstream.”
He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”
A Life in Uniform
Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.
Predictions and Current Events
In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.
Many of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.
The Pentagon Purge
In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.
This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”
An Ominous Comparison
The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.
“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”
Rules of Engagement
The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed 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 established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.
Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”
The Home Front
Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.
The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.
Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 each party think they are right.”
Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”
