🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, arguing that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents in the future.”

He added that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later assigned to Iraq to train the local military.

War Games 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 power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into jurisdictions – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin executed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The doubt that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles 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 controversy over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial 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 all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality domestically. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

The presence of these soldiers in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of a theoretical 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 increase in tensions 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 people injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”