🔗 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 top ranks of the American armed forces – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to align the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was at stake.

“If you poison the institution, the remedy may be very difficult and painful for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the administration were placing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, separate from electoral agendas, in jeopardy. “As the saying goes, reputation is earned a ounce at a time and lost in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in scenario planning that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and use of the state militias into jurisdictions – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military swears an oath to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The military inspector general was dismissed, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a new era now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s 1940s purges of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader purged a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over armed engagements in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “take no prisoners.” Under accepted military manuals, it is prohibited to order that all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the potential criminality of this action. “It was either a grave breach or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that breaches of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a threat 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 contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s primary concern is a dramatic clash between federal forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

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