🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be very difficult and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent 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, graduating 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 Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the installation of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing 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 furor over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military law, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”