🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

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 in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear 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 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 all involved think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”