🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator 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 rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Also removed were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, 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 debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous 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 outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”