🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an aggressive push to infuse with partisan politics the senior leadership of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the president’s will was extraordinary in modern times and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s dominant armed force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be very difficult and painful for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were putting the position of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including nearly forty years in active service. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself trained at the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later assigned to the Middle East to restructure the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

A number of the actions simulated in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and deployment of the state militias into urban areas – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards undermining military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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 armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under US military law, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a major concern here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 confrontation in which both sides think they are right.”

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