🔗 Share this article

The former president and his defense secretary his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to politicise the top ranks of the US military – a move that bears disturbing similarities to Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a retired senior army officer has cautions.

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 extraordinary in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the credibility and capability of the world’s preeminent military was in the balance.

“When you contaminate the body, the solution may be incredibly challenging and painful for commanders downstream.”

He added that the decisions of the administration were jeopardizing the status of the military as an apolitical force, separate from party politics, under threat. “As the phrase goes, reputation is established a ounce at a time and emptied in torrents.”

A Life in Uniform

Eaton, seventy-five, has spent his entire life to military circles, including 37 years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton himself was an alumnus of West Point, completing his studies soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later sent to the Middle East to train the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a vocal opponent of alleged manipulation of military structures. In 2024 he participated in war games that sought to model potential authoritarian moves should a a particular figure return to the White House.

Several of the scenarios envisioned in those drills – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the state militias into urban areas – have since occurred.

The Pentagon Purge

In Eaton’s assessment, a key initial move towards eroding military independence was the selection of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to the president, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military is bound by duty to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of dismissals began. The military inspector general was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the service chiefs.

This wholesale change sent a direct and intimidating message that reverberated throughout the armed forces, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will fire you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also planted seeds of distrust throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact drew parallels to Joseph Stalin’s political cleansings of the best commanders in the Red Army.

“The Soviet leader executed a lot of the most capable of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The uncertainty that gripped the armed forces of the Soviet Union is reminiscent of today – they are not killing these officers, but they are removing them from leadership roles with parallel consequences.”

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

Rules of Engagement

The debate over lethal US military strikes in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a symptom of the harm that is being caused. The administration has asserted the strikes target cartel members.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under established military manuals, it is forbidden to order that every combatant must be killed irrespective of whether they pose a threat.

Eaton has stated clearly 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 attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a reality at home. The administration has assumed control of state guard units and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s biggest fear is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He conjured up 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 both sides think they are following orders.”

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