🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an concerted effort to politicise the senior leadership of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, saying that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were placing the standing of the military as an independent entity, outside of party politics, at risk. “As the phrase goes, credibility is established a drop at a time and drained in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only swears loyalty to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of removals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin purged a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are stripping 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 lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military law, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

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

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