🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, saying that the initiative to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the organization, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is earned a ounce at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards undermining military independence was the appointment of a television host as secretary of defense. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of international law overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 all involved think they are right.”

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.”