🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to undo, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – 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 removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, 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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant 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 war crime or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain machine gunning victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that actions of international law outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 each party 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.”