🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, stating that the effort to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for presidents downstream.”

He stated further that the actions of the current leadership were jeopardizing the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, free from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, credibility is built a drop at a time and emptied in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including over three decades in active service. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of 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 deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards compromising military independence was the installation of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only expresses devotion to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a wave of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's elimination of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these individuals, but they are removing them from posts of command with similar impact.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a sign of the damage that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has claimed the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military law, it is forbidden to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime 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 breaches of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 all involved think they are right.”

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