🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing 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 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated 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 forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of international law abroad might soon become a threat at home. The federal government 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 primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a hypothetical 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.”

Sooner or later, 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.”