🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to rectify, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency 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 in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the administration were placing the status of the military as an independent entity, free from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a ounce at a time and drained in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, 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 West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to the Middle East to train the local military.

War Games and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he was involved in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those planning sessions – including politicisation of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a opening gambit towards compromising military independence was the selection of a political ally as secretary of defense. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are removing them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality 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 WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law outside US territory might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

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

Eaton’s primary concern is a violent incident between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He conjured up a theoretical 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 right.”

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