🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

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 extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

Eventually, 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.”