🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading 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 repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops 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 gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are following orders.”

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