🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including 37 years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

Predictions and Current Events

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

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up 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 purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings 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 uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the harm that is being wrought. The administration 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 US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas 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 troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and state and local police. He described a theoretical 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 escalation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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