🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at 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 Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”