🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled 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.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He added that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military manuals, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

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