🔗 Share this article

The former president and his Pentagon chief his appointed defense secretary are engaged in an systematic campaign to infuse with partisan politics the top ranks of the US military – a move that smacks of Stalinism and could take years to repair, a former senior army officer has stated.

Maj Gen Paul Eaton has sounded the alarm, arguing that the initiative to bend the top brass of the military to the executive's political agenda was extraordinary in recent history and could have severe future repercussions. He noted that both the reputation and efficiency of the world’s most powerful fighting force was in the balance.

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

He stated further that the decisions of the current leadership were putting the status of the military as an apolitical force, outside of electoral agendas, under threat. “To use an old adage, reputation is established a ounce at a time and lost in torrents.”

A Life in Service

Eaton, seventy-five, has devoted his whole career to defense matters, including nearly forty years in the army. His parent was an air force pilot whose B-57 bomber was shot down 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 rose through the ranks to become a senior commander and was later assigned to Iraq to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

War Games and Reality

In the past few years, Eaton has been a sharp critic of perceived manipulation of defense institutions. In 2024 he took part in scenario planning that sought to anticipate potential power grabs should a a particular figure return to the presidency.

Several of the scenarios 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 undermining military independence was the appointment of a media personality as the Pentagon's top civilian. “He not only pledges allegiance to an individual, he declares personal allegiance – whereas the military takes a vow to the rule of law,” Eaton said.

Soon after, a series of firings began. The independent oversight official was fired, followed by the senior legal advisors. Out, too, went the top officers.

This Pentagon purge sent a direct and intimidating message that echoed throughout the branches of service, Eaton said. “Fall in line, or we will dismiss you. You’re in a changed reality now.”

An Ominous Comparison

The purges also sowed doubt throughout the ranks. Eaton said the impact reminded him of Joseph Stalin’s elimination of the military leadership in Soviet forces.

“The Soviet leader killed a lot of the top talent of the military leadership, and then inserted ideological enforcers into the units. The doubt that swept the armed forces of the Soviet Union is comparable with today – they are not executing these men and women, but they are ousting them from leadership roles with a comparable effect.”

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

Legal and Ethical Lines

The debate over armed engagements in the Caribbean is, for Eaton, a indication of the erosion that is being wrought. The Pentagon leadership has stated the strikes target “narco-terrorists”.

One early strike has been the subject of legal debate. Media reports revealed that an order was given to “kill everybody.” Under established military manuals, it is prohibited to order that every combatant must be killed regardless of whether they are combatants.

Eaton has stated clearly about the ethical breach of this action. “It was either a violation of the laws of war or a homicide. So we have a serious issue here. This decision is analogous to a U-boat commander machine gunning survivors in the water.”

The Home Front

Looking ahead, Eaton is deeply worried that violations of international law abroad might soon become a possibility domestically. The administration has federalised national guard troops and sent them into multiple urban areas.

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

Eaton’s gravest worry is a violent incident between federal forces and state and local police. He painted a picture of 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 confrontation 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 individuals harmed who really don’t need to get hurt.”