🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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