🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”