🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a strategy that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He cautioned that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for administrations that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the standing of the military as an apolitical force, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is established a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of military structures. In 2024 he was involved in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the outcomes simulated in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the state militias into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising 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 fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the senior commanders.

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

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted 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 ousting 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.”

Legal and Ethical Lines

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military manuals, it is prohibited to order that survivors must be killed regardless of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality within the country. The federal government has nationalized state guard units and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been challenged in the judicial system, where cases continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and state and local police. He described 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are following orders.”

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