🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty 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, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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 regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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