🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”