🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a push that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“Once you infect the institution, the solution may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Laos in 1969.

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

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will fire you. You’re in a different world now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then placed 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 officers, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a dangerous precedent inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military law, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

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 major concern here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a possibility at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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