🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model 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 state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped 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 a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 right.”

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