🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a strategy that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former infantry chief has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, saying that the campaign to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have long-term dire consequences. He cautioned that both the credibility and operational effectiveness of the world’s preeminent military was at stake.

“When you contaminate the institution, the remedy may be exceptionally hard and costly for administrations downstream.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were jeopardizing the standing of the military as an non-partisan institution, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, trust is established a ounce at a time and emptied in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to defense matters, including over three decades in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself graduated from West Point, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later sent to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to model potential concerning actions should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the outcomes envisioned in those planning sessions – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a first step towards eroding military independence was the selection of a television host as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he swears fealty – whereas the military takes a vow to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a different world now.”

A Historical Parallel

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then inserted party loyalists into the units. The uncertainty that permeated the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over lethal US military strikes in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target drug traffickers.

One early 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 all individuals must be killed irrespective of whether they are a danger.

Eaton has expressed certainty 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 bears a striking resemblance to a U-boat commander attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and local authorities. He painted a picture of a hypothetical 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 escalation in which each party think they are following orders.”

Eventually, he warned, a “memorable event” was likely to take place. “There are going to be people harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”