🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an aggressive push to politicise the highest echelons of the US military – a move that is evocative of Stalinism and could need decades to undo, a former infantry chief has cautions.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the campaign to align the top brass of the military to the president’s will was unparalleled in modern times and could have long-term dire consequences. He warned that both the reputation and operational effectiveness of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

“Once you infect the organization, the cure may be exceptionally hard and painful for commanders in the future.”

He stated further that the moves of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of partisan influence, under threat. “To use an old adage, credibility is established a ounce at a time and emptied in buckets.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including 37 years in active service. His father was an military aviator whose aircraft was lost over Southeast Asia in 1969.

Eaton personally was an alumnus of the US Military Academy, earning his commission soon after the end of the Vietnam conflict. He climbed the ladder to become infantry chief and was later deployed to Iraq to restructure the local military.

Predictions and Current Events

In the past few years, Eaton has been a consistent commentator of alleged political interference of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in war games that sought to predict potential authoritarian moves should a certain candidate return to the Oval Office.

Many of the outcomes simulated in those exercises – including partisan influence of the military and sending of the national guard into jurisdictions – have reportedly been implemented.

A Leadership Overhaul

In Eaton’s analysis, a first step towards undermining military independence was the installation of a television host as secretary of defense. “The appointee not only swears loyalty to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military swears an oath to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a succession of firings began. The top internal watchdog was removed, followed by the top military lawyers. Also removed were the top officers.

This wholesale change sent a unmistakable and alarming message that rippled throughout the military services, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will remove you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The removals also created uncertainty throughout the ranks. Eaton said the situation was reminiscent of the Soviet dictator's 1940s purges of the best commanders in Soviet forces.

“Stalin killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then installed political commissars into the units. The uncertainty that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these officers, but they are ousting 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.”

Rules of Engagement

The furor over deadly operations in Latin American waters is, for Eaton, a sign of the harm that is being caused. The administration has claimed the strikes target drug traffickers.

One initial strike has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “leave no survivors.” Under US military manuals, it is a violation to order that all individuals must be killed regardless of whether they pose a threat.

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 attacking survivors in the water.”

Domestic Deployment

Looking ahead, Eaton is profoundly concerned that actions of rules of war outside US territory might soon become a reality at home. The federal government has assumed control of national guard troops and sent them into numerous cities.

The presence of these troops in major cities has been disputed in federal courts, where cases continue.

Eaton’s biggest fear is a dramatic clash between federalised forces and state and local police. 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 both sides think they are acting legally.”

Sooner or later, 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.”