🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drop at a time and drained in torrents.”

A Life in Service

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

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping 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 debate over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”