🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise 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 sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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.”