Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.
Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.
“When you contaminate the organization, the remedy may be very difficult and damaging for administrations in the future.”
He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”
An Entire Career in Uniform
Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.
Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.
Predictions and Current Events
In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.
Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.
The Pentagon Purge
In Eaton’s view, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.
Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.
This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”
An Ominous Comparison
The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.
“Stalin purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”
The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”
Rules of Engagement
The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.
One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.
Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”
The Home Front
Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of rules of war overseas might soon become a threat at home. The administration has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.
The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where legal battles continue.
Eaton’s primary concern 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 escalation in which both sides think they are right.”
At some point, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”
