🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial 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 forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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