🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He added that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, 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 rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him 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 inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped 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 parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 each party think they are following orders.”

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