🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the installation of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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