🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from partisan influence, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at 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 assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

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

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law overseas might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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