🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies 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 Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining 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 unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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