🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be very difficult and costly for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation 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 rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

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

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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