🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired infantry chief has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals 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 violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols 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 personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 acting legally.”

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