🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a historical parallel inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial 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 without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach 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 looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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.”

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