🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and painful for presidents in the future.”

He added that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is built a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

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

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty 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 posts of command 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

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

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He described a hypothetical scenario where one state's guard is commandeered 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.”

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