🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to subordinate the senior command of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders downstream.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from party politics, at risk. “To use an old adage, trust is established a drip at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including over three decades in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the White House.

Several of the outcomes predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to an individual, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

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

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

A Historical Parallel

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then placed party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over deadly operations in international waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility at home. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a imaginary 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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