🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “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 wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped 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 positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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