🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

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

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

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.”