🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was fired, 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 armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command 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 armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up a imaginary 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”