🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from partisan influence, at risk. “As the saying goes, trust is earned a drop at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

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

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are removing them from positions of authority with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion 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 “leave no survivors.” 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 no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”