🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host 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 constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being inflicted. 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 accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of 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 homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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