🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear 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 a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless 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 real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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