🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend 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 warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed 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 removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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 stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. 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 are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up 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 escalation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, 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.”