🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, 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 Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals 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 Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”