🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept 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 similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. 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 without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 confrontation in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

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