🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

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

A number of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized 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 cases continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are following orders.”

At some point, 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.”