🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“If you poison the institution, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One initial strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is forbidden to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation 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 increase in tensions in which all involved think they are right.”

Eventually, he warned, a “major confrontation” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”