🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, stating that the initiative to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the reputation and capability of the world’s preeminent military was under threat.

“When you contaminate the institution, the solution may be very difficult and costly for commanders downstream.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in uniform. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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 furor over lethal US military strikes in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a major concern here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a direct confrontation between federal forces and local authorities. He conjured up a hypothetical 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 confrontation in which each party think they are right.”

Eventually, 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.”