🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime 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 deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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