🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He added that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration 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 “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

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

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