🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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