🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot 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 infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular 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 without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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