🔗 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 American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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