🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from posts of command 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 furor over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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