🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

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 major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 right.”

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