🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

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

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, 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 situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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