🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be exceptionally hard and painful for presidents in the future.”

He continued that the decisions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is built a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, 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 shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the actions predicted in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the top officers in Soviet forces.

“Stalin purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a theoretical 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, 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.”