🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are mounting an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a strategy that is evocative of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a retired infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has raised profound concerns, stating that the initiative to bend the senior command of the military to the executive's political agenda was without precedent in living memory and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“If you poison the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and damaging for presidents that follow.”

He continued that the decisions of the administration were placing the position of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, in jeopardy. “As the phrase goes, trust is earned a drip at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to military circles, including nearly forty years in uniform. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally trained at the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam war. He advanced his career to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the local military.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in tabletop exercises that sought to predict potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

Several of the actions simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into urban areas – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as secretary of defense. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a direct and intimidating message that rippled throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will remove you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The purges also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact was reminiscent of Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the best and brightest of the military leadership, and then installed ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not executing these officers, but they are stripping them from leadership roles with similar impact.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The furor over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the damage that is being inflicted. The administration has stated the strikes target cartel members.

One particular strike has been the subject of ethical questions. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under accepted military doctrine, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed without determining whether they are combatants.

Eaton has expressed certainty about the illegality of this action. “It was either a war crime or a murder. So we have a serious issue here. This decision looks a whole lot like a WWII submarine captain firing upon victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a threat domestically. The administration has nationalized national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been contested in the judicial system, where legal battles continue.

Eaton’s gravest worry is a dramatic clash between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. He described a theoretical 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 right.”

Sooner or later, he warned, a “significant incident” was likely to take place. “There are going to be civilians or troops getting hurt who really don’t need to get hurt.”