🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drip at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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