🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged 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 killing these officers, but they are removing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”