🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are leading an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the highest echelons of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to rectify, a retired senior army officer has warned.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the campaign to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was without precedent in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He cautioned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the institution, the cure may be very difficult and damaging for administrations downstream.”

He added that the moves of the current leadership were placing the status of the military as an apolitical force, free from partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is built a ounce at a time and lost in gallons.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has dedicated his lifetime to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an military aviator whose B-57 bomber was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, completing his studies 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 rebuild the local military.

Predictions and Reality

In recent years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

A number of the scenarios predicted in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into certain cities – have already come to pass.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s view, a opening gambit towards eroding military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to the president, he swears fealty – whereas the military is bound by duty to the nation's founding document,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of dismissals began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Subsequently ousted were the service chiefs.

This Pentagon purge sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in 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 situation reminded him of the Soviet dictator's political cleansings of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these men and women, but they are removing them from posts of command with a comparable effect.”

The end result, Eaton said, was that “you’ve got a 1940s Stalin problem inside the American military right now.”

Rules of Engagement

The controversy over armed engagements in international waters is, for Eaton, a symptom of the erosion that is being inflicted. The Pentagon leadership has asserted the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

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 manuals, it is a violation to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has no doubts about the potential criminality 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 WWII submarine captain attacking victims in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of engagement protocols abroad might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has federalised state guard units and sent them into several jurisdictions.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and local authorities. 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 confrontation in which each party think they are acting legally.”

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