Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.
Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.
“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations downstream.”
He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”
A Life in Service
Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.
Predictions and Reality
In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.
Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.
A Leadership Overhaul
In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.
This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”
An Ominous Comparison
The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.
“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent 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 executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”
Legal and Ethical Lines
The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.
One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation 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 violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”
Domestic Deployment
Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.
The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.
Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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.”
Sooner or later, 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.”
