🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the top ranks of the American armed forces – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the initiative to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“If you poison the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, trust is built a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the actions envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The military inspector general was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership 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 established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and local authorities. He described 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”