🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be exceptionally hard and costly for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the actions predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in 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 effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial 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 every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 both sides think they are right.”

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