🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including over three decades in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have reportedly been implemented.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are ousting them from positions of authority 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 debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a threat at home. The administration has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federal 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are right.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”