🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority 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 debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration 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 “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 acting legally.”

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