🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He added that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is forbidden 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 unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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