🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the senior leadership of the American armed forces – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired infantry chief has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the campaign to bend the higher echelons of the military to the executive's political agenda was unparalleled in recent history and could have long-term dire consequences. He noted that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“Once you infect the body, the cure may be incredibly challenging and costly for administrations in the future.”

He continued that the moves of the administration were jeopardizing the position of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drip at a time and emptied in gallons.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to the armed services, including 37 years in active service. His parent was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, graduating soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become infantry chief and was later deployed to the Middle East to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to anticipate potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Several of the actions envisioned in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s view, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a political ally as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only expresses devotion to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the senior commanders.

This wholesale change sent a clear and chilling message that echoed throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Comply, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the effect was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the military leadership in the Red Army.

“Stalin killed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then placed political commissars into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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 debate over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being wrought. The administration has claimed the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant 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 violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a real problem here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning victims in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is extremely apprehensive that breaches of engagement protocols overseas might soon become a threat within the country. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a direct confrontation between federalised forces and municipal law enforcement. He painted a picture of a imaginary 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 following orders.”

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