🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed 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 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”