🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the standing and efficiency of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

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

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a drip at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, 75, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become a senior commander and was later assigned to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the judge advocates general. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the 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 situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from posts of command with parallel consequences.”

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 furor over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the erosion that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under established military doctrine, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. He described a hypothetical 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

At some point, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops injured who really don’t need to get hurt.”