🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating 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 dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from leadership roles 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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed 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 established military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

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

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He described 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, 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.”