🔗 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 US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the senior command 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 standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

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