🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission 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 Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – 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 compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally 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 top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”