🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in living memory and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for commanders that follow.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, reputation is built a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being inflicted. The administration has stated 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 manuals, it is forbidden 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 murder. So we have a real problem here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a imaginary 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 acting legally.”

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