🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the initiative to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and costly for presidents that follow.”

He stated further that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow 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 Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

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

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 following orders.”

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