🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the highest echelons of the American armed forces – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to undo, a retired senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the effort to subordinate the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the organization, the cure may be incredibly challenging and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were putting the status of the military as an independent entity, separate from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the saying goes, trust is built a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has dedicated his lifetime to the armed services, including nearly forty years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in tabletop exercises that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Many of the scenarios envisioned in those exercises – including politicisation of the military and deployment of the national guard into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

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 series of removals began. The independent oversight official was dismissed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being wrought. The administration has asserted the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under accepted military manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has no doubts about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision bears a striking resemblance to a WWII submarine captain machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war overseas might soon become a reality domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 all involved think they are acting legally.”

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