🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 increase in tensions in which each party think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”