🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”