🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a push that smacks of Stalinism and could require a generation to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Retired Major General Paul Eaton has issued a stark warning, arguing that the effort to subordinate the higher echelons of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in recent history and could have lasting damaging effects. He warned that both the credibility and efficiency of the world’s dominant armed force was under threat.

“When you contaminate the body, the remedy may be incredibly challenging and costly for commanders in the future.”

He continued that the actions of the current leadership were putting the standing of the military as an independent entity, free from electoral agendas, under threat. “As the phrase goes, credibility is earned a drop at a time and emptied in buckets.”

An Entire Career in Service

Eaton, 75, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His father was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was lost over Laos in 1969.

Eaton personally graduated from the US Military Academy, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a certain candidate return to the presidency.

A number of the scenarios simulated in those drills – including politicisation of the military and use of the national guard into certain cities – have since occurred.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards compromising military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “The appointee not only pledges allegiance to the president, he professes absolute loyalty – whereas the military takes a vow to the constitution,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of removals began. The top internal watchdog was fired, followed by the top military lawyers. Out, too, went the service chiefs.

This leadership shake-up sent a clear and chilling message that reverberated throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Toe the line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a new era now.”

A Historical Parallel

The dismissals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the top officers in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The fear that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is similar to today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are stripping them from positions of authority with a comparable effect.”

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

One early strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under US military doctrine, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed without determining whether they are a danger.

Eaton has stated clearly about the illegality of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a unlawful killing. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a WWII submarine captain firing upon survivors 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 state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

The presence of these personnel in major cities has been challenged in federal courts, where lawsuits continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and municipal law enforcement. 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 increase in tensions in which both sides think they are acting legally.”

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