🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an concerted effort to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a push that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former senior army officer has cautions.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in modern times and could have severe future repercussions. He warned that both the standing and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was at stake.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be exceptionally hard and damaging for administrations in the future.”

He stated further that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “As the saying goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and lost in buckets.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to the armed services, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from West Point, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He rose through the ranks to become infantry chief and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into certain cities – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s analysis, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the appointment of a media personality as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Subsequently ousted were the top officers.

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 sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these individuals, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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 erosion that is being inflicted. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. 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 pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a war crime or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a U-boat commander firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a threat within the country. The federal government has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”