🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

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

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact 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 installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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