🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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