🔗 Share this article

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

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for commanders that follow.”

He added that the decisions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective 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 murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 both sides think they are right.”

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