🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived 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 presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

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

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical scenario where one state's guard is federalised 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 “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”