🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary 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.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference 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 White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting 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 controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors 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 homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”