🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

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