🔗 Share this article

Donald Trump and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of electoral agendas, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is established a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from posts of command with similar impact.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 escalation in which each party think they are right.”

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