🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, 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 was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

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 law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”