🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the senior command 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 in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent 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 killing these individuals, 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality 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 U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 each party think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”