🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

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

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit 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 swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change 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 dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping 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 controversy over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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