🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial 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 survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 both sides think they are right.”

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