🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

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

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the actions simulated in those drills – 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 analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 all involved think they are right.”

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