🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “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 series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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