🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent 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 concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant 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 grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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