🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for presidents downstream.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, 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 drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 each party think they are acting legally.”

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