🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

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

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, 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 controversy over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers 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 local authorities. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”