🔗 Share this article

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

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, at risk. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft 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 conflict. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment 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 is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation 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 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 posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”