🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 escalation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”