🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot 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 advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

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

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent 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 individuals, but they are ousting them from posts of command 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 furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

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

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

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