🔗 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 senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee 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 removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

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

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

At some point, 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.”