🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading 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 require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the cure may be very difficult and costly for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”