🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen 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 living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders 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 fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of rules of war abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 increase in tensions 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 people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”