🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to align the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and costly for administrations that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to train the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted 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 analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a imaginary 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 escalation in which all involved think they are right.”

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