🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

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 scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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