🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

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

Many of the actions simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are ousting 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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