🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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