🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He 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 dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”