🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, 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.”