🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled 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 purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed 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 officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles 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 controversy over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 right.”

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